Dropout Prevention Services and Programs in Public School

Dropout P

revention Services and P

rograms in P

ublic School D

istricts: 2010-11

ies.ed.govwww.ed.gov

2011

33504.0911.8599010505

NCES 2011-037 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Dropout Prevention Services andPrograms in Public School Districts:2010-11

Dropout Prevention Services and Programs in Public School Districts: 2010–11 First Look

September 2011

Priscilla Rouse Carver Laurie Lewis Westat

Jared Coopersmith Project Officer National Center for Education Statistics

NCES 2011-037 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

U.S. Department of Education Arne Duncan Secretary Institute of Education Sciences John Q. Easton Director National Center for Education Statistics Jack Buckley Commissioner

Early Childhood, International, and Crosscutting Studies Division Val Plisko Associate Commissioner

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is the primary federal entity for collecting, analyzing, and reporting data related to education in the United States and other nations. It fulfills a congressional mandate to collect, collate, analyze, and report full and complete statistics on the condition of education in the United States; conduct and publish reports and specialized analyses of the meaning and significance of such statistics; assist state and local education agencies in improving their statistical systems; and review and report on education activities in foreign countries.

NCES activities are designed to address high-priority education data needs; provide consistent, reliable, complete, and accurate indicators of education status and trends; and report timely, useful, and high-quality data to the U.S. Department of Education, the Congress, the states, other education policymakers, practitioners, data users, and the general public. Unless specifically noted, all information contained herein is in the public domain.

We strive to make our products available in a variety of formats and in language that is appropriate to a variety of audiences. You, as our customer, are the best judge of our success in communicating information effectively. If you have any comments or suggestions about this or any other NCES product or report, we would like to hear from you. Please direct your comments to

NCES, IES, U.S. Department of Education 1990 K Street NW Washington, DC 20006-5651

September 2011

The NCES World Wide Web Home Page address is http://nces.ed.gov. The NCES World Wide Web Publications and Products address is http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch.

This report was prepared for the National Center for Education Statistics under Contract No. ED-04-C0-0059/0025 with Westat. Mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Suggested Citation Carver, P.R., and Lewis, L. (2011). Dropout Prevention Services and Programs in Public School Districts: 2010–11 (NCES 2011-037). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. For ordering information on this report, write to ED Pubs U.S. Department of Education P.O. Box 22207 Alexandria, VA 22304

or call toll free 1-877-4-ED-Pubs or order online at http://www.edpubs.gov.

Content Contact Jared Coopersmith (202) 219-7106 [email protected]

iii

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to recognize the respondents from public school districts who provided data on dropout prevention services and programs upon which the report is based.

This page intentionally left blank.

v

Contents Page

Acknowledgments ....................................................................................................................... iii

List of Tables .............................................................................................................................. vi

Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1

Selected Findings ........................................................................................................................ 3

Tables .......................................................................................................................................... 5

Appendix A: Standard Error Tables ............................................................................................ A-1

Appendix B: Technical Notes ..................................................................................................... B-1

Appendix C: Questionnaire ......................................................................................................... C-1

vi

List of Tables

Table Page

1. Percent of public school districts offering various services or programs in any of their schools specifically to address the needs of students at risk of dropping out of school, by instructional level of the school in which it was offered and district characteristics: School year 2010–11 ....................................................................... 7

2. Percent of public school districts with high school grades offering various services or programs in any of their schools specifically to address the needs of students at risk of dropping out of school, by district characteristics: School year 2010–11 ................................................................................................ 9

3. Percent of public school districts with high school grades reporting that various educational options are available to students in the district, and the percent of those districts reporting that some or most students at risk of dropping out participate in the educational option, by district characteristics: School year 2010–11 ................................................................................................ 10

4. Percent of public school districts where information is regularly provided to receiving schools about the unique needs of individual at-risk students when the student transitions to a school at a higher instructional level, by district characteristics: School year 2010–11 ....................................................................... 11

5. Percent of public school districts using various transition supports for all students in any of the district’s schools to help students transition between instructional levels, by district characteristics: School year 2010–11 ...................... 12

6. Percent of public school districts using various types of mentors in any of their schools specifically to address the needs of students at risk of dropping out, by instructional level of the school in which mentors are used and district characteristics: School year 2010–11 ....................................................................... 13

7. Percent of public school districts using a formal program designed to reduce behavioral problems in schools or classrooms, by instructional level of the school in which it is used and district characteristics: School year 2010–11 ........... 14

8. Percentage distribution of public school districts reporting the extent to which various factors are used in their district to identify students who are at risk of dropping out, by district characteristics: School year 2010–11 ................................ 15

9. Percent of public school districts reporting that they work with various entities to address the needs of students at risk of dropping out, by district characteristics: School year 2010–11 ....................................................................... 18

vii

Table Page

10. Percent of public school districts reporting that they provide information about the employment or financial consequences of dropping out and the percent of public school districts reporting that they provide information about various education and training options to students who appear highly likely to drop out, by district characteristics: School year 2010–11 ...................................................... 19

11. Percentage distribution of public school districts reporting whether the district tries to determine the status of students who do not return to school in the fall as expected, and the percentage distribution reporting whether the district follows up with students who dropped out before the next school year to encourage them to return, by district characteristics: School year 2010–11 .............................. 20

12. Percent of public school districts reporting that they use various types of information to determine whether to implement additional district-wide dropout prevention efforts, by district characteristics: School year 2010–11 ........................ 21

Appendix A Tables

1a. Standard errors for the percent of public school districts offering various services or programs in any of their schools specifically to address the needs of students at risk of dropping out of school, by instructional level of the school in which it was offered and district characteristics: School year 2010–11 ................... A-3

2a. Standard errors for the percent of public school districts with high school grades offering various services or programs in any of their schools specifically to address the needs of students at risk of dropping out of school, by district characteristics: School year 2010–11 ....................................................................... A-5

3a. Standard errors for the percent of public school districts with high school grades reporting that various educational options are available to students in the district, and standard errors for the percent of those districts reporting that some or most students at risk of dropping out participate in the educational option, by district characteristics: School year 2010–11 ...................................................... A-6

4a. Standard errors for the percent of public school districts where information is regularly provided to receiving schools about the unique needs of individual at-risk students when the student transitions to a school at a higher instructional level, by district characteristics: School year 2010–11 ............................................ A-7

5a. Standard errors for the percent of public school districts using various transition supports for all students in any of the district’s schools to help students transition between instructional levels, by district characteristics: School year 2010–11 ................................................................................................ A-8

6a. Standard errors for the percent of public school districts using various types of mentors in any of their schools specifically to address the needs of students at risk of dropping out, by instructional level of the school in which mentors are used and district characteristics: School year 2010–11 ............................................ A-9

viii

Table Page

7a. Standard errors for the percent of public school districts using a formal program designed to reduce behavioral problems in schools or classrooms, by instructional level of the school in which it is used and district characteristics: School year 2010–11 ....................................................................... A-10

8a. Standard errors for the percentage distribution of public school districts reporting the extent to which various factors are used in their district to identify students who are at risk of dropping out, by district characteristics: School year 2010–11 ................................................................................................ A-11

9a. Standard errors for the percent of public school districts reporting that they work with various entities to address the needs of students at risk of dropping out, by district characteristics: School year 2010–11 ...................................................... A-14

10a. Standard errors for the percent of public school districts reporting that they provide information about the employment or financial consequences of dropping out and the percent of public school districts reporting that they provide information about various education and training options to students who appear highly likely to drop out, by district characteristics: School year 2010–11 ................................................................................................ A-15

11a. Standard errors for the percentage distribution of public school districts reporting whether the district tries to determine the status of students who do not return to school in the fall as expected, and the standard errors for the percentage distribution reporting whether the district follows up with students who dropped out before the next school year to encourage them to return, by district characteristics: School year 2010–11 ...................................................... A-16

12a. Standard errors for the percent of public school districts reporting that they use various types of information to determine whether to implement additional district-wide dropout prevention efforts, by district characteristics: School year 2010–11 ................................................................................................ A-17

Appendix B Table

B-1. Number and percent of responding public school districts in the study sample, and estimated number and percent of public school districts the sample represents, by selected district characteristics: School year 2010–11 ...................... B-4

1

Introduction

This report provides national estimates about dropout prevention services and programs in public school districts. The estimates presented in this report are based on a district survey about dropout prevention services and programs offered by the district or by any of the schools in the district during the 2010–11 school year. For this survey, dropout prevention services and programs were defined as services and programs intended to increase the rate at which students are staying in school, progressing toward graduation, or earning a high school credential. The survey was designed to be completed by all types of districts, including those without high school grades. The survey asked about services and programs that districts may provide to students at various levels, including those in elementary and middle/junior high school, that are designed to support students who are struggling academically or who may be at future risk of dropping out.

Specifically, the survey covered the following:

• Whether the district offered various services or programs specifically to address the needs of students at risk of dropping out of school;

• Whether various educational options were available to students in the district, and if so, how many students at risk of dropping out participated in those educational options;

• Types of transition support services used to help all students transition from a school at one instructional level to a school at a higher instructional level (e.g., from middle school to high school);

• Whether information was provided to receiving schools about the unique needs of at-risk students transitioning from a school at one instructional level to a school at a higher instructional level;

• Whether the district used various types of mentors specifically to address the needs of students at risk of dropping out;

• Use of a formal program designed to reduce behavioral problems in schools or classrooms;

• Extent to which the district used various factors to identify students who were at risk of dropping out;

• Whether the district worked with various entities to address the needs of students at risk of dropping out;

• Whether the district provided information about the employment or financial consequences of dropping out of school to students who appeared highly likely to drop out of school;

• Whether the district provided information about various education and training options to students who appeared highly likely to drop out of school;

• Whether the district tried to determine the status of students who were expected to return to school in the fall but who do not return as expected, and whether the district follows up before the next school year with students who drop out to encourage them to return to school; and

• Whether the district used various types of information to determine whether to implement additional district-wide dropout prevention efforts.

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) in the Institute of Education Sciences conducted this Fast Response Survey System (FRSS) survey in fall 2010. FRSS is a survey system designed to collect small amounts of issue-oriented data from a nationally representative sample of districts, schools, or teachers with minimal burden on respondents and within a relatively short period of time. The survey was mailed to 1,200 public school districts in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The unweighted survey response rate was 91 percent and the weighted response rate using the initial base weights was 89 percent. The survey weights were adjusted for questionnaire nonresponse and the data were then weighted to yield national estimates that represent all public school districts in the United States.

2

The purpose of this report is to introduce new NCES data from the survey through the presentation of descriptive information. Because this report is purely descriptive in nature, readers are cautioned not to make causal inferences about the data presented here. These findings have been chosen to demonstrate the range of information available from the FRSS study rather than to discuss all of the data collected; they are not meant to emphasize any particular issue. The findings are estimates of dropout prevention services and programs available in public school districts rather than estimates of students served. Percentages of districts and students do not have the same distributions. For example, although only 5 percent of public school districts in the United States are located in cities, about 31 percent of all students are enrolled in these districts. The findings are based on self-reported data from public school districts.

All specific statements of comparisons made in the bullets have been tested for statistical significance at the .05 level using Student’s t-statistics to ensure that the differences are larger than those that might be expected due to sampling variation. Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not included. Many of the variables examined are related to one another, and complex interactions and relationships have not been explored. Tables of standard error estimates are provided in appendix A. Detailed information about the survey methodology is provided in appendix B, and the questionnaire can be found in appendix C. Appendix B also includes definitions of the analysis variables (i.e., district characteristics) and terms used in the report.

3

Selected Findings

• Districts reported offering the following services or programs in at least one of their elementary, middle or junior high, and high schools specifically to address the needs of students at risk of dropping out: tutoring (75, 79, and 84 percent, respectively), summer school (54, 58, and 67 percent, respectively), remediation classes (61, 69, and 79 percent, respectively), guided study hall/academic support (36, 63, and 70 percent, respectively), alternative schools or programs (20, 44, and 76 percent, respectively), and after-school programs (42, 45, and 45 percent, respectively) (table 1).

• A majority of districts with high school grades reported offering various services or programs in at least one of their schools specifically to address the needs of students at risk of dropping out, including credit recovery courses or programs (88 percent), smaller class size (72 percent), early graduation options (63 percent), and self-paced courses for purposes other than credit recovery (55 percent) (table 2).

• Among districts with high school grades that had career and technical high schools or courses available to students, the majority reported that some or most of their at-risk students participated in that option (table 3). Career and technical high schools were available in 58 percent of districts, with 75 percent of those districts reporting that some and 15 percent reporting that most at-risk students participate in that option. Career and technical courses at a regular high school were available in 83 percent of districts, with 66 percent of those districts reporting that some and 26 percent reporting that most at-risk students participate in the option.

• Eighty-four percent of districts reported regularly providing information to the receiving schools about the unique needs of individual at-risk students when students transition to a school at a higher instructional level (e.g., from middle school to high school) (table 4).

• Districts reported using the following transition supports for all students in at least one of the district’s schools to help students transition between elementary school and middle or junior high school or between middle or junior high school and high school: An assigned student mentor (10 and 20 percent, respectively), an assigned adult mentor (17 and 26 percent, respectively), and an advisement class1 (24 and 40 percent, respectively) (table 5).

1 An advisement class is one that is held regularly (e.g., weekly) and may include lessons on organizational and study skills, information on courses needed for graduation, and information about careers and college preparation.

• Districts reported using the following types of mentors in at least one of the district’s elementary, middle or junior high, and high schools specifically to address the needs of students at risk of dropping out: student mentors (25, 28, and 39 percent, respectively), school counselors, teachers, or school administrators who formally mentor (60, 66, and 77 percent, respectively), adult mentors employed by the district whose only job is to mentor students (6, 9, and 12 percent, respectively), and community volunteers (35, 30, and 30 percent, respectively) (table 6).

• The percentage of districts that reported using a formal program designed to reduce behavioral problems in schools or classrooms in at least one of their elementary schools, middle or junior high schools, and high schools was 69 percent, 61 percent, and 49 percent, respectively (table 7).

• More than one-third of districts reported using the following factors to a large extent2 to identify students who are at risk of dropping out: academic failure (76 percent), truancy or excessive absences (64 percent), and behaviors that warrant suspension or expulsion (45 percent) (table 8).

2 Response options in the questionnaire were “not at all,” “small extent,” “moderate extent,” and “large extent.”

• Districts reported working with various entities to address the needs of students at risk of dropping out. Among those were child protective services (85 percent), a community mental health agency (73 percent), state or local government agencies that provide financial assistance to needy families (68 percent), churches or community organizations (54 percent), and a health clinic or hospital (50 percent) (table 9).

4

• Fifty-five percent of districts reported that it was standard procedure to provide all students who appear highly likely to drop out with information about the employment or financial consequences of dropping out. Some districts also reported that it was standard procedure to provide all students who appear highly likely to drop out with information about alternative schools or programs (63 percent), General Educational Development (GED) or adult education programs (53 percent), job training and GED combination programs (45 percent), and job training programs (30 percent) (table 10).

• Seventy-three percent of districts reported that it was standard procedure to follow up with all students in their district who do not return in the fall as expected to determine the status of those students before the next school year (table 11). Thirty-six percent of districts reported that it was standard procedure to follow up with all students in their district who dropped out to encourage them to return.

• Districts reported using various types of information to determine whether to implement additional district-wide dropout prevention efforts including: attendance rates (82 percent), dropout rates (79 percent), graduation rates (78 percent), the number or percentage of students failing courses or held back (76 percent), and the number of expulsions or other disciplinary actions (67 percent) (table 12).

5

Tables


7 Table 1. Percent of public school districts offering various services or programs in any of their schools specifically to address the needs

of students at risk of dropping out of school, by instructional level of the school in which it was offered and district characteristics: School year 2010–11

District characteristic

Tutoring Summer school Remediation classes1

Offered in elementary

school

Offered in middle/junior

high school Offered in

high school


school



high school


school



high school

All public school districts ........................ 75 79 84 54 58 67 61 69 79

District enrollment size Less than 2,500 .......................................... 73 76 81 52 51 56 56 62 73 2,500 to 9,999 ............................................ 76 83 87 57 74 86 70 83 91 10,000 or more .......................................... 94 96 96 66 79 91 78 89 95

Community type City ............................................................ 91 92 92 69 81 90 72 87 92 Suburban ................................................... 69 75 82 47 66 81 68 77 85 Town ......................................................... 80 88 91 61 67 82 68 81 85 Rural .......................................................... 75 77 81 53 51 54 55 61 74

Region Northeast ................................................... 60 69 74 48 69 79 73 82 85 Southeast ................................................... 93 95 95 56 65 77 76 82 89 Central ....................................................... 71 76 80 54 53 59 52 59 69 West .......................................................... 84 83 90 57 55 65 56 68 83

Poverty concentration Less than 10 percent .................................. 67 73 83 46 60 68 58 70 82 10 to 19 percent ......................................... 75 79 82 56 56 65 61 67 76 20 percent or more ..................................... 85 86 88 59 61 68 62 70 80

See notes at end of table.

8 Table 1. Percent of public school districts offering various services or programs in any of their schools specifically to address the needs

of students at risk of dropping out of school, by instructional level of the school in which it was offered and district characteristics: School year 2010–11—Continued


Guided study hall/academic support2 Alternative schools or programs3 After-school programs Offered in

elementary school



high school


school



high school


school



high school

All public school districts ........................ 36 63 70 20 44 76 42 45 45

District enrollment size Less than 2,500 .......................................... 36 59 67 17 38 68 37 39 35 2,500 to 9,999 ............................................ 32 69 73 23 56 90 47 56 60 10,000 or more .......................................... 40 76 83 40 74 99 70 76 80

Community type City ............................................................ 39 68 83 37 70 98 68 77 77 Suburban ................................................... 30 59 73 20 42 80 43 54 56 Town ......................................................... 35 71 75 23 58 89 46 52 54 Rural .......................................................... 37 61 66 17 38 68 37 37 34

Region Northeast ................................................... 44 68 83 15 38 74 36 48 45 Southeast ................................................... 27 61 62 30 76 92 57 56 63 Central ....................................................... 35 67 68 17 43 74 38 40 39 West .......................................................... 34 56 68 22 37 73 44 46 43

Poverty concentration Less than 10 percent .................................. 37 64 79 16 41 74 34 42 46 10 to 19 percent ......................................... 37 69 73 18 44 78 41 43 43 20 percent or more ..................................... 32 53 59 25 49 76 50 52 47

1 A remediation class is any class intended to bring students who are academically below grade level up to proficiency. 2 Guided study hall/academic support period is typically for students who are struggling academically; teachers assist students by helping them manage their time and their assignments, and either provide or get them the academic support/tutoring that they need to complete homework and be successful in their classes. Teachers may also provide academic support in specific areas such as mathematics, reading, or social studies. 3 Alternative schools and programs are designed to address the needs of students that typically cannot be met in regular schools. The students who attend alternative schools and programs are typically at risk of educational failure (as indicated by poor grades, truancy, disruptive behavior, pregnancy, or similar factors associated with temporary or permanent withdrawal from school). NOTE: Percents are based on the percent of public school districts with those grades (96 percent of districts have elementary school grades, 93 percent have middle/junior high school grades, and 81 percent have high school grades). Poverty estimates for school districts were based on Title I data provided to the U.S. Department of Education by the U.S. Census Bureau. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System (FRSS), “Dropout Prevention Services and Programs,” FRSS 99, 2010.

9 Table 2. Percent of public school districts with high school grades offering various services or programs in any of their schools

specifically to address the needs of students at risk of dropping out of school, by district characteristics: School year 2010–11


Credit recovery courses/

programs1 Smaller

class size

Early graduation

options

Self-paced courses for

purposes other than credit recovery2

Decelerated curriculum3

Flexible school day

Summer bridge

program4

District administered

GED preparation

courses5

Subsidized child care while teen

parents attend classes

All public school districts ............. 88 72 63 55 49 40 25 24 11

District enrollment size Less than 2,500 ............................... 85 72 58 52 42 32 16 15 4 2,500 to 9,999 ................................. 92 72 69 58 64 51 39 36 16 10,000 or more ............................... 97 79 85 72 65 71 63 56 49

Community type City ................................................. 95 74 77 66 64 64 58 53 48 Suburban ........................................ 86 71 62 50 61 52 40 26 15 Town .............................................. 92 68 70 62 51 44 30 26 13 Rural ............................................... 86 74 59 53 43 32 15 19 5

Region Northeast ........................................ 72 75 55 42 67 47 25 27 7 Southeast ........................................ 94 74 54 56 55 32 34 50 16 Central ............................................ 90 67 69 56 47 37 21 16 7 West ............................................... 91 76 65 61 38 43 27 19 17

Poverty concentration Less than 10 percent ....................... 86 73 72 54 56 53 29 17 7 10 to 19 percent .............................. 86 71 61 56 51 37 23 25 11 20 percent or more .......................... 92 73 58 54 40 34 25 27 14

1 Credit recovery courses/programs are opportunities allowing students to recover course credits from classes they have missed or failed. 2 Self-paced courses/independent study are opportunities for students to work through a course at their own pace, for example, through a computer-based program or packets of work, for purposes other than credit recovery. 3 Decelerated curriculum refers to a curriculum that is spread over a longer period of time than a regular course. An example of a decelerated curriculum is an algebra 1 course that is spread over 2 years or two class periods for an entire year. This definition applies to any curriculum that is decelerated specifically to meet the needs of students who may be at risk of failing a course. 4 Summer bridge programs are programs designed to provide assistance to students before transitioning from one instructional level school to another (e.g., from middle school to high school). These programs may include, but are not limited to, providing academic support, remedial opportunities, study skills, and opportunities to connect to teachers or peers at the new school. 5 GED is General Educational Development. NOTE: Percents are based on the 81 percent of districts with high school grades. Poverty estimates for school districts were based on Title I data provided to the U.S. Department of Education by the U.S. Census Bureau. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System (FRSS), “Dropout Prevention Services and Programs,” FRSS 99, 2010.

10 Table 3. Percent of public school districts with high school grades reporting that various educational options are available to students in

the district, and the percent of those districts reporting that some or most students at risk of dropping out participate in the educational option, by district characteristics: School year 2010–11


Career/technical high school1 Career/technical courses at a

regular high school

Dual enrollment in postsecondary courses

with a career/technical focus

Dual enrollment in postsecondary courses with an academic focus Work-based learning

Avail-able in

district2

How many at-risk students participate3

Avail-able in

district2


Avail-able in

district2


Avail-able in

district2


Avail-able in

district2


Some Most Some Most Some Most Some Most Some Most

All public school districts .................. 58 75 15 83 66 26 69 58 3 84 34 1! 67 67 7

District enrollment size Less than 2,500 .............. 54 73 15 79 63 29 66 55 3! 82 34 ‡ 61 63 7 2,500 to 9,999 ................ 68 76 18 86 71 23 73 61 3 86 30 2! 77 71 9 10,000 or more .............. 63 82 10 98 82 15 88 67 4 92 46 ‡ 90 73 7

Community type City ................................ 64 79 14! 93 79 16 88 62 8! 91 44 ‡ 83 68 11 Suburban ....................... 74 77 15 74 74 20 63 55 4! 82 28 3! 71 70 9 Town ............................. 59 78 17 91 68 27 70 61 ‡ 84 32 ‡ 74 68 5! Rural .............................. 52 72 14 82 62 28 69 57 3! 84 36 ‡ 62 65 7

Region Northeast ....................... 90 74 17 63 80 13 50 46 7! 76 24 ‡ 77 62 6 Southeast ....................... 57 62 30 90 61 32 75 64 ‡ 86 27 ‡ 68 68 12 Central ........................... 59 78 10 83 65 26 74 54 3! 88 32 ‡ 69 72 5! West .............................. 37 80 12 93 65 28 72 66 ‡ 83 47 ‡ 57 61 8!

Poverty concentration Less than 10 percent ...... 68 79 11 81 72 20 64 52 3! 81 33 ‡ 79 71 5 10 to 19 percent ............. 56 74 17 82 63 29 72 59 3! 88 34 ‡ 65 64 8 20 percent or more ......... 54 72 17 85 67 26 70 61 4! 80 34 3! 60 65 9!

! Interpret data with caution; the coefficient of variation is greater than or equal to 30 percent. ‡ Reporting standards not met. The coefficient of variation (CV) for this estimate is 50 percent or greater. 1 Career/technical high schools are those that provide formal preparation for semiskilled, skilled, technical, or professional occupations. Career/technical high schools included those that were available to students in the district and were administered either by the district or by a regional entity. 2 Based on the 81 percent of districts with high school grades. 3 Based on the districts reporting that educational option as available. NOTE: Response options in the questionnaire for the percent of students who participate in the educational option were “no or few at-risk students participate,” “some at-risk students participate,” and “most at-risk students participate.” Poverty estimates for school districts were based on Title I data provided to the U.S. Department of Education by the U.S. Census Bureau. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System (FRSS), “Dropout Prevention Services and Programs,” FRSS 99, 2010.

11

Table 4. Percent of public school districts where information is regularly provided to receiving schools about the unique needs of individual at-risk students when the student transitions to a school at a higher instructional level, by district characteristics: School year 2010–11


Information provided to

receiving school

All public school districts ........................................................................................................................................... 84

District enrollment size Less than 2,500 ............................................................................................................................................................. 83 2,500 to 9,999 ............................................................................................................................................................... 88 10,000 or more ............................................................................................................................................................. 85

Community type City ............................................................................................................................................................................... 86 Suburban ...................................................................................................................................................................... 86 Town ............................................................................................................................................................................ 88 Rural ............................................................................................................................................................................. 82

Region Northeast ...................................................................................................................................................................... 83 Southeast ...................................................................................................................................................................... 87 Central .......................................................................................................................................................................... 87 West ............................................................................................................................................................................. 81

Poverty concentration Less than 10 percent ..................................................................................................................................................... 82 10 to 19 percent ............................................................................................................................................................ 88 20 percent or more ........................................................................................................................................................ 82

NOTE: Poverty estimates for school districts were based on Title I data provided to the U.S. Department of Education by the U.S. Census Bureau. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System (FRSS), “Dropout Prevention Services and Programs,” FRSS 99, 2010.

12

Table 5. Percent of public school districts using various transition supports for all students in any of the district’s schools to help students transition between instructional levels, by district characteristics: School year 2010–11


Transition from elementary to middle/junior high school1

Transition from middle/junior high school to high school2

Assign a student mentor

Assign an adult mentor

Offer an advisement

class3



Offer an advisement

class3

All public school districts ................... 10 17 24 20 26 40

District enrollment size Less than 2,500 ..................................... 10 17 21 18 27 34 2,500 to 9,999 ....................................... 8 16 29 22 27 49 10,000 or more ..................................... 13 12 33 27 24 59

Community type City ....................................................... 17 12 29 28 20 50 Suburban .............................................. 9 14 25 24 25 45 Town .................................................... 7 20 25 20 31 43 Rural ..................................................... 10 17 22 17 26 36

Region Northeast .............................................. 5! 11 22 18 28 39 Southeast .............................................. 8 14 23 13 27 49 Central .................................................. 13 22 27 23 26 36 West ..................................................... 9 14 22 20 26 40

Poverty concentration Less than 10 percent ............................. 13 16 26 29 28 42 10 to 19 percent .................................... 10 20 27 17 26 41 20 percent or more ................................ 7 13 17 15 26 36

! Interpret data with caution; the coefficient of variation is greater than or equal to 30 percent. 1 Based on the 93 percent of districts with middle/junior high school grades. 2 Based on the 81 percent of districts with high school grades. 3 An advisement class is one that is held regularly (e.g., weekly) and may include lessons on organizational and study skills, information on courses needed for graduation, and information about careers and college preparation. NOTE: Poverty estimates for school districts were based on Title I data provided to the U.S. Department of Education by the U.S. Census Bureau. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System (FRSS), “Dropout Prevention Services and Programs,” FRSS 99, 2010.

13 Table 6. Percent of public school districts using various types of mentors in any of their schools specifically to address the needs of

students at risk of dropping out, by instructional level of the school in which mentors are used and district characteristics: School year 2010–11


Student mentors

School counselors, teachers, or school administrators who formally mentor students

Adult employed by the district whose only job is to mentor students Community volunteers


school

Offered in middle/

junior high school

Offered in high school


school

Offered in middle/

junior high school

Offered in high

school


school

Offered in middle/

junior high school

Offered in high

school


school

Offered in middle/

junior high school

Offered in high

school

All public school districts ................... 25 28 39 60 66 77 6 9 12 35 30 30

District enrollment size Less than 2,500 ............... 23 25 32 58 62 75 6 8 10 27 22 20 2,500 to 9,999 ................. 27 32 50 61 76 80 6 9 15 46 44 42 10,000 or more ............... 42 49 65 75 83 87 11 14 24 73 71 73

Community type City ................................. 44 50 66 65 73 80 10 14 23 65 66 70 Suburban ........................ 18 25 47 45 61 72 5! 5! 11 28 26 32 Town .............................. 28 32 48 63 74 77 8 14 15 45 44 38 Rural ............................... 25 26 31 63 65 78 6 8 10 31 24 22

Region Northeast ........................ 20 23 45 49 60 73 5! 7! 8! 22 17 21 Southeast ........................ 25 24 30 70 80 78 9 10 15 60 57 54 Central ............................ 29 31 41 61 66 75 6 7 11 33 30 24 West ............................... 25 30 38 61 66 82 7 10 15 35 28 31

Poverty concentration Less than 10 percent ....... 22 29 46 49 57 72 7 7 11 30 29 29 10 to 19 percent .............. 31 32 43 65 72 80 4 8 11 37 29 27 20 percent or more .......... 21 23 28 63 68 76 9 11 16 36 34 34

! Interpret data with caution; the coefficient of variation is greater than or equal to 30 percent. NOTE: Percents are based on the percent of public school districts with those grades (96 percent of districts have elementary school grades, 93 percent have middle/junior high school grades, and 81 percent have high school grades). Poverty estimates for school districts were based on Title I data provided to the U.S. Department of Education by the U.S. Census Bureau. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System (FRSS), “Dropout Prevention Services and Programs,” FRSS 99, 2010.

14

Table 7. Percent of public school districts using a formal program designed to reduce behavioral problems in schools or classrooms, by instructional level of the school in which it is used and district characteristics: School year 2010–11


Use a formal program designed to reduce behavioral problems1

Elementary schools

Middle/junior high schools

High schools

All public school districts ................................................. 69 61 49

District enrollment size Less than 2,500 ................................................................... 63 53 42 2,500 to 9,999 ..................................................................... 80 75 60 10,000 or more ................................................................... 91 90 78

Community type City ..................................................................................... 90 82 79 Suburban ............................................................................ 75 67 56 Town .................................................................................. 81 71 51 Rural ................................................................................... 61 54 43

Region Northeast ............................................................................ 76 65 53 Southeast ............................................................................ 73 71 57 Central ................................................................................ 69 61 45 West ................................................................................... 63 55 48

Poverty concentration Less than 10 percent ........................................................... 69 63 50 10 to 19 percent .................................................................. 69 61 49 20 percent or more .............................................................. 69 59 48

1 Formal program to reduce behavioral problems refers to a systematic program that is specifically designed to reduce behavioral problems and is implemented at the classroom or school level. Some examples of formal programs designed to reduce behavioral problems are Positive Behavioral Support and Positive Behavioral Intervention System. NOTE: Percents are based on the percent of public school districts with those grades (96 percent of districts have elementary school grades, 93 percent have middle/junior high school grades, and 81 percent have high school grades). Poverty estimates for school districts were based on Title I data provided to the U.S. Department of Education by the U.S. Census Bureau. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System (FRSS), “Dropout Prevention Services and Programs,” FRSS 99, 2010.

15 Table 8. Percentage distribution of public school districts reporting the extent to which various factors are used in their district to

identify students who are at risk of dropping out, by district characteristics: School year 2010–11


Truancy or excessive absences

Academic failure

Failure on state standardized tests

Behaviors that warrant suspension or expulsion

Behaviors that warrant other disciplinary action

Not at all or small

extent

Mod-erate

extent Large extent

Not at all or small

extent

Mod-erate

extent Large extent

Not at all or small

extent

Mod-erate

extent Large extent

Not at all or small

extent

Mod-erate

extent Large extent

Not at all or small

extent

Mod-erate

extent Large extent

All public school districts .................................... 11 26 64 8 16 76 31 37 32 17 38 45 29 44 27

District enrollment size Less than 2,500 ...................................................... 14 28 58 11 18 71 37 36 27 20 39 41 33 44 23 2,500 to 9,999 ........................................................ 4 22 75 2! 12 86 19 38 42 8 39 53 21 45 34 10,000 or more ...................................................... 3! 16 80 ‡ 9 90 16 36 48 7 30 64 14 45 40

Community type City ........................................................................ 3! 20 77 3! 12 86 14 41 45 8 40 52 16 47 37 Suburban ............................................................... 11 20 69 9 12 79 22 38 40 16 36 48 26 41 32 Town ..................................................................... 5! 21 74 ‡ 12 85 31 33 36 9 34 57 22 48 29 Rural ...................................................................... 14 29 57 10 19 71 36 37 27 20 40 40 33 44 23

Region Northeast ............................................................... 16 22 62 13 15 72 35 37 29 18 33 48 26 41 33 Southeast ............................................................... ‡ 15 82 ‡ 11 88 15 40 45 7 40 53 19 44 37 Central ................................................................... 9 29 62 7 18 75 37 36 27 17 38 45 28 47 25 West ...................................................................... 13 28 59 9 17 74 29 37 34 19 40 41 36 44 20

Poverty concentration Less than 10 percent .............................................. 17 27 56 12 18 69 31 38 31 23 35 42 34 39 27 10 to 19 percent ..................................................... 9 27 64 7 13 80 33 37 30 13 36 50 25 45 29 20 percent or more ................................................. 8 22 70 6! 18 76 29 36 35 15 44 42 28 49 23



identify students who are at risk of dropping out, by district characteristics: School year 2010–11—Continued


Involvement with the criminal justice system

Involvement with social services or foster care

Pregnancy/teen parenthood Substance abuse Learning disability Mental health problems

Not at all or small

extent

Mod-erate

extent Large extent

Not at all or small

extent

Mod-erate

extent Large extent

Not at all or small

extent

Mod-erate

extent Large extent

Not at all or small

extent

Mod-erate

extent Large extent

Not at all or small

extent

Mod-erate

extent Large extent

Not at all or small

extent

Mod-erate

extent Large extent

All public school districts ................. 28 36 36 45 38 17 41 31 28 31 39 29 45 33 22 46 37 17

District enrollment size Less than 2,500 ............. 31 37 32 48 37 15 46 29 25 35 39 26 50 30 20 51 35 14 2,500 to 9,999 ............... 19 33 48 39 40 21 31 36 33 22 39 39 37 40 23 35 41 24 10,000 or more ............. 18 35 46 27 47 26 21 32 46 23 40 37 27 38 35 31 46 23

Community type City ............................... 18 34 47 31 44 24 24 30 46 22 43 35 22 46 32 28 43 29 Suburban ...................... 33 33 35 50 35 15 49 25 26 32 33 35 46 35 20 43 40 17 Town ............................ 14 36 51 35 37 29 22 39 39 20 41 39 41 35 24 36 44 20 Rural ............................. 31 37 31 47 39 14 46 31 24 36 40 24 49 30 21 52 33 15

Region Northeast ...................... 33 30 36 48 36 16 52 27 21 34 33 33 49 35 16 43 42 15 Southeast ...................... 16 33 51 29 50 21 20 44 37 27 42 31 31 35 34 34 44 22 Central .......................... 26 41 33 45 38 17 40 32 29 32 42 26 47 32 22 48 35 17 West ............................. 31 35 34 48 34 18 43 28 29 31 38 31 47 32 21 51 33 16

Poverty concentration Less than 10 percent ..... 37 29 34 50 32 18 54 21 24 40 30 31 50 32 18 48 34 17 10 to 19 percent ............ 25 39 36 42 39 18 34 36 30 27 42 31 45 31 24 43 41 16 20 percent or more ........ 23 38 39 42 42 16 38 33 29 30 44 26 42 36 22 49 34 17



identify students who are at risk of dropping out, by district characteristics: School year 2010–11—Continued


Observed change in student attitude or life conditions

Homelessness or frequent address change Limited English proficiency Migrant status Other

Not at all or small

extent

Mod-erate

extent Large extent

Not at all or small

extent

Mod-erate

extent Large extent

Not at all or small

extent

Mod-erate

extent Large extent

Not at all or small

extent

Mod-erate

extent Large extent

Not at all or small

extent

Mod-erate

extent Large extent

All public school districts .................. 34 44 23 38 32 30 59 28 13 69 21 10 98 1! 1

District enrollment size Less than 2,500 .............. 35 43 22 41 31 28 65 25 10 73 20 8 99 ‡ ‡ 2,500 to 9,999 ................ 31 46 24 31 35 34 46 35 19 63 24 12 96 2! 2! 10,000 or more .............. 25 48 27 19 37 44 33 39 29 50 29 21 95 3! 3!

Community type City ................................ 28 48 24 20 39 41 35 37 29 48 37 15 95 3! 3! Suburban ....................... 39 38 23 44 31 25 56 30 15 74 16 10 98 ‡ 2! Town ............................. 25 47 28 28 34 37 46 34 20 65 23 13 97 ‡ ‡ Rural .............................. 35 44 21 40 31 29 66 25 9 71 21 8 99 ‡ ‡

Region Northeast ....................... 33 43 25 41 35 23 68 24 8 78 15 6! 96 3! ‡ Southeast ....................... 31 45 24 29 33 38 48 32 20 54 31 15 98 ‡ 1! Central ........................... 34 46 21 38 31 31 58 32 9 68 25 7 1001 ‡ ‡ West .............................. 35 42 23 38 31 31 56 25 19 69 18 13 97 # 2!

Poverty concentration Less than 10 percent ...... 37 39 23 42 31 27 64 26 10 77 16 6 98 1! 1! 10 to 19 percent ............. 29 48 23 34 34 32 55 30 15 65 24 12 97 1! 2! 20 percent or more ......... 36 42 22 38 32 31 57 28 15 67 23 10 99 ‡ ‡

# Rounds to zero. ! Interpret data with caution; the coefficient of variation is greater than or equal to 30 percent. ‡ Reporting standards not met. The coefficient of variation (CV) for this estimate is 50 percent or greater. 1 Rounds to 100 percent. NOTE: Response options in the questionnaire were “not at all,” “small extent,” “moderate extent,” and “large extent.” Responses for not at all and small extent were combined in the table. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Poverty estimates for school districts were based on Title I data provided to the U.S. Department of Education by the U.S. Census Bureau. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System (FRSS), “Dropout Prevention Services and Programs,” FRSS 99, 2010.

18 Table 9. Percent of public school districts reporting that they work with various entities to address the needs of students at risk of

dropping out, by district characteristics: School year 2010–11


Child protective services1

Com-munity mental health

agency1

State or local

government agencies

that provide financial

assistance to needy families1

Churches or community

organiza-tions1

Crisis interven-

tion center1

Juvenile assessment

center1,2 Local

business1

Drug and/or alcohol clinic1

Health clinic

or hospital3

Family planning/

child placement

agency3

Child care centers/

providers for children

of teen parents3

Job placement

center3

All public school districts .................. 85 73 68 54 47 44 41 47 50 37 29 28

District enrollment size Less than 2,500 .............. 82 68 63 48 40 41 34 39 45 32 22 23 2,500 to 9,999 ................ 90 84 77 63 60 48 52 61 58 44 39 34 10,000 or more .............. 94 92 87 88 76 63 72 79 73 56 67 55

Community type City ................................ 94 90 88 81 72 67 71 74 73 58 64 49 Suburban ....................... 81 77 67 49 58 41 37 59 50 36 30 29 Town ............................. 89 84 79 65 50 44 54 57 61 47 42 31 Rural .............................. 84 66 63 50 40 42 35 37 44 31 22 24

Region Northeast ....................... 90 83 68 45 59 34 33 62 53 42 30 34 Southeast ....................... 88 89 78 78 47 58 58 47 57 48 43 34 Central ........................... 85 71 72 55 47 50 46 47 51 38 26 25 West .............................. 79 62 59 51 40 37 34 36 44 27 27 24

Poverty concentration Less than 10 percent ...... 83 73 65 48 50 37 36 53 50 37 23 28 10 to 19 percent ............. 88 73 70 59 49 46 46 50 50 40 31 29 20 percent or more ......... 81 73 67 55 41 47 38 35 48 32 33 25

1 Based on all public school districts. 2 Juvenile assessment center is a centralized receiving, processing, and intervention facility that brings together community services for youth and families who have, or are likely to have, contact with the legal system. 3 Based on the 96 percent of districts with middle/junior high school or high school grades. NOTE: Poverty estimates for school districts were based on Title I data provided to the U.S. Department of Education by the U.S. Census Bureau. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System (FRSS), “Dropout Prevention Services and Programs,” FRSS 99, 2010.

19 Table 10. Percent of public school districts reporting that they provide information about the employment or financial consequences of

dropping out and the percent of public school districts reporting that they provide information about various education and training options to students who appear highly likely to drop out, by district characteristics: School year 2010–11


Employment or financial consequences of

dropping out1

Education and training options Alternative schools or

programs2,3 Job training/GED

combination programs1,4 GED or adult education

programs1 Job training programs1,5 Yes, standard

procedure with all students

Yes, with some

students

Yes, standard procedure

with all students

Yes, with some

students


with all students

Yes, with some

students


with all students

Yes, with some

students


with all students

Yes, with some

students

All public school districts ........ 55 30 63 19 45 26 53 24 30 33

District enrollment size Less than 2,500 .......................... 56 28 59 19 44 22 51 22 29 29 2,500 to 9,999 ............................ 55 34 71 21 48 34 58 29 33 39 10,000 or more .......................... 51 42 77 19 47 38 57 31 34 47

Community type City ............................................ 52 40 75 20 53 32 57 27 38 44 Suburban ................................... 46 33 58 23 39 29 46 26 25 36 Town ......................................... 63 28 77 15 49 31 57 27 35 38 Rural .......................................... 56 29 59 19 45 22 54 23 30 29

Region Northeast ................................... 62 23 56 19 54 22 60 23 36 33 Southeast ................................... 65 33 72 20 59 25 72 24 40 36 Central ....................................... 59 25 70 19 44 31 55 25 29 35 West .......................................... 43 39 56 19 36 22 40 25 23 29

Poverty concentration Less than 10 percent .................. 53 26 58 17 42 23 47 26 26 33 10 to 19 percent ......................... 58 32 67 19 47 30 58 24 31 35 20 percent or more ..................... 54 31 61 22 46 23 52 24 32 30

1 Based on the 96 percent of districts with middle/junior high school or high school grades. 2 Based on all public school districts. 3 Alternative schools and programs are designed to address the needs of students that typically cannot be met in regular schools. The students who attend alternative schools and programs are typically at risk of educational failure (as indicated by poor grades, truancy, disruptive behavior, pregnancy, or similar factors associated with temporary or permanent withdrawal from school). 4 Job training and General Educational Development (GED) combination programs are programs that combine both job training and GED preparation courses. This includes programs such as Job Corps or the Army/National Guard GED program or other similar programs. 5 Job training programs are those that provide formal preparation for semiskilled, skilled, or technical occupations. These programs do not include General Educational Development (GED) preparation or result in a high school diploma. NOTE: Students who are highly likely to drop out of school include those with multiple risk factors, such as many unexcused absences, academic failure, or reoccurring behavior that warrants suspension or expulsion, or those who provide other strong indications that they are dropping out. Response options in the questionnaire were “yes, this is standard procedure with all students highly likely to drop out;” “yes, with some students;” and “no.” Poverty estimates for school districts were based on Title I data provided to the U.S. Department of Education by the U.S. Census Bureau. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System (FRSS), “Dropout Prevention Services and Programs,” FRSS 99, 2010.

20

Table 11. Percentage distribution of public school districts reporting whether the district tries to determine the status of students who do not return to school in the fall as expected, and the percentage distribution reporting whether the district follows up with students who dropped out before the next school year to encourage them to return, by district characteristics: School year 2010–11


District tries to determine status of students who do not return in the fall as expected

District follows up with students who dropped out before the next school year to encourage them to return

Yes, for all students

Yes, with some

students No Yes, for all

students

Yes, with some

students No

All public school districts ..................... 73 14 12 36 34 30

District enrollment size Less than 2,500 ....................................... 72 14 14 35 32 33 2,500 to 9,999 ......................................... 77 15 8 37 38 25 10,000 or more ....................................... 73 21 6 41 46 13

Community type City ......................................................... 73 18 9 39 44 17 Suburban ................................................ 71 14 14 29 33 37 Town ...................................................... 79 14 7 38 38 24 Rural ....................................................... 73 14 13 38 32 30

Region Northeast ................................................ 71 14 15 26 34 40 Southeast ................................................ 80 15 5! 47 39 15 Central .................................................... 75 13 12 35 34 31 West ....................................................... 71 16 13 41 32 27

Poverty concentration Less than 10 percent ............................... 70 11 20 32 30 38 10 to 19 percent ...................................... 78 14 8 36 37 27 20 percent or more .................................. 71 19 11 41 35 25

! Interpret data with caution; the coefficient of variation is greater than or equal to 30 percent. NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Poverty estimates for school districts were based on Title I data provided to the U.S. Department of Education by the U.S. Census Bureau. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System (FRSS), “Dropout Prevention Services and Programs,” FRSS 99, 2010.

21 Table 12. Percent of public school districts reporting that they use various types of information to determine whether to implement

additional district-wide dropout prevention efforts, by district characteristics: School year 2010–11

District characteristic Dropout

rates1 Graduation

rates1

Number of students

attending adult

education/ GED

programs1, 2

Number of students

taking or passing the GED test1, 2

Attendance rates3

Number or percentage of students

failing courses or held back3

Number of expulsions

or other disciplinary

actions3

State standardized

test scores3

Feedback from a

district-administered

parent or student survey3 Other3

All public school districts .... 79 78 31 28 82 76 67 59 42 1

District enrollment size Less than 2,500 ...................... 74 73 28 25 78 72 62 53 39 ‡ 2,500 to 9,999 ........................ 90 90 38 33 90 85 77 71 49 3 10,000 or more ...................... 92 93 41 38 96 88 82 77 56 6

Community type City ........................................ 88 88 36 32 92 86 83 83 64 9 Suburban ............................... 74 74 29 24 81 72 66 58 38 1! Town ..................................... 89 88 31 28 87 84 75 59 43 ‡ Rural ...................................... 77 75 31 29 79 74 63 57 42 1!

Region Northeast ............................... 78 77 35 28 76 71 61 51 28 2! Southeast ............................... 97 96 47 42 93 90 83 80 60 2! Central ................................... 79 78 28 24 85 79 70 54 47 ‡ West ...................................... 73 72 25 27 78 71 61 63 41 1!

Poverty concentration Less than 10 percent .............. 72 71 27 23 75 67 63 53 35 2! 10 to 19 percent ..................... 82 81 32 28 85 81 68 59 45 1! 20 percent or more ................. 82 81 32 33 84 77 70 65 47 2!

! Interpret data with caution; the coefficient of variation is greater than or equal to 30 percent. ‡ Reporting standards not met. The coefficient of variation (CV) for this estimate is 50 percent or greater. 1 Based on the 96 percent of districts with middle/junior high school or high school grades. 2 GED is General Educational Development. 3 Based on all public school districts. NOTE: Poverty estimates for school districts were based on Title I data provided to the U.S. Department of Education by the U.S. Census Bureau. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System (FRSS), “Dropout Prevention Services and Programs,” FRSS 99, 2010.


A-1

Appendix A

Standard Error Tables


A-3

Table 1a. Standard errors for the percent of public school districts offering various services or programs in any of their schools specifically to address the needs of students at risk of dropping out of school, by instructional level of the school in which it was offered and district characteristics: School year 2010–11


Tutoring Summer school Remediation classes Offered in

elementary school



high school


school



high school


school



high school

All public school districts ........................ 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.9 1.8 2.1 2.3 2.3 2.5

District enrollment size Less than 2,500 .......................................... 2.2 2.3 2.2 2.5 2.4 3.1 3.2 3.2 3.8 2,500 to 9,999 ............................................ 2.1 1.6 1.3 2.5 2.3 1.6 2.0 1.6 1.7 10,000 or more .......................................... 1.7 1.7 1.1 3.3 2.4 2.2 3.2 1.8 1.2

Community type City ............................................................ 2.4 2.1 2.4 3.5 2.9 2.6 3.8 2.6 2.5 Suburban ................................................... 3.2 3.1 2.8 3.4 3.1 3.0 3.1 2.8 2.7 Town ......................................................... 3.2 2.6 2.4 3.6 4.2 3.1 3.8 3.3 3.5 Rural .......................................................... 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.8 2.6 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.7

Region Northeast ................................................... 3.9 3.9 4.0 4.5 4.1 3.6 3.5 3.0 3.8 Southeast ................................................... 2.4 2.2 2.2 4.0 4.1 4.2 3.5 3.2 2.9 Central ....................................................... 3.3 3.2 3.1 3.3 2.8 3.8 3.1 3.5 3.8 West .......................................................... 2.2 2.3 2.2 3.5 3.9 4.1 3.4 3.3 3.5

Poverty concentration Less than 10 percent .................................. 3.5 3.6 3.0 3.4 2.9 3.5 3.9 3.5 3.4 10 to 19 percent ......................................... 2.6 2.2 2.1 3.1 2.8 2.8 3.0 3.4 3.7 20 percent or more ..................................... 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.1 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.9 3.7


A-4

Table 1a. Standard errors for the percent of public school districts offering various services or programs in any of their schools specifically to address the needs of students at risk of dropping out of school, by instructional level of the school in which it was offered and district characteristics: School year 2010–11—Continued


Guided study hall/academic support Alternative schools or programs After-school programs Offered in

elementary school



high school


school



high school


school



high school

All public school districts ........................ 1.7 1.9 1.9 1.7 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.7 2.1

District enrollment size Less than 2,500 .......................................... 2.2 2.6 2.7 2.3 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.3 3.0 2,500 to 9,999 ............................................ 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.4 1.4 2.1 2.2 2.2 10,000 or more .......................................... 2.8 2.6 2.1 2.3 2.5 0.7 2.7 2.4 2.1

Community type City ............................................................ 4.4 4.1 3.1 3.9 3.4 1.2 4.2 3.8 3.6 Suburban ................................................... 2.6 2.9 2.9 2.6 3.1 3.0 3.5 3.4 3.3 Town ......................................................... 3.8 3.5 3.6 3.2 4.0 3.3 3.7 3.6 4.1 Rural .......................................................... 2.8 3.2 2.8 2.2 2.6 2.8 2.9 2.9 2.9

Region Northeast ................................................... 3.6 3.4 2.8 2.6 3.8 3.5 4.4 4.0 4.3 Southeast ................................................... 3.8 4.1 4.2 3.9 4.3 3.1 4.2 4.1 4.1 Central ....................................................... 2.8 3.3 3.3 2.3 3.1 2.6 3.6 3.1 3.3 West .......................................................... 3.1 3.8 4.1 3.0 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.4 3.7

Poverty concentration Less than 10 percent .................................. 3.0 3.1 3.1 2.4 3.0 3.5 3.1 3.1 4.0 10 to 19 percent ......................................... 3.1 3.0 3.3 2.4 2.7 2.6 2.3 2.2 2.8 20 percent or more ..................................... 3.0 4.3 4.1 3.0 3.6 3.5 3.1 3.4 3.9

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System (FRSS), “Dropout Prevention Services and Programs,” FRSS 99, 2010.

A-5

Table 2a. Standard errors for the percent of public school districts with high school grades offering various services or programs in any of their schools specifically to address the needs of students at risk of dropping out of school, by district characteristics: School year 2010–11


Credit recovery courses/

programs Smaller

class size

Early graduation

options

Self-paced courses for

purposes other than credit

recovery Decelerated curriculum

Flexible school day

Summer bridge

program

District administered

GED preparation

courses

Subsidized child care while teen

parents attend classes

All public school districts ............. 1.3 1.7 1.9 2.3 1.7 1.8 1.3 1.5 0.9

District enrollment size Less than 2,500 ............................... 1.9 2.4 2.7 3.2 2.3 2.4 1.7 2.0 1.1 2,500 to 9,999 ................................. 1.3 2.2 2.6 2.6 2.4 2.6 2.3 2.2 1.8 10,000 or more ............................... 1.2 2.5 1.9 3.7 2.3 2.8 3.1 2.4 2.9

Community type City ................................................. 1.9 4.1 4.0 4.3 4.1 4.3 4.6 4.6 4.0 Suburban ........................................ 2.9 2.8 3.4 2.8 3.1 3.4 3.3 2.3 1.9 Town .............................................. 2.7 3.5 4.0 3.9 3.8 4.1 3.4 3.0 2.3 Rural ............................................... 2.2 2.7 3.2 3.4 2.8 2.5 1.8 2.2 1.1

Region Northeast ........................................ 4.3 3.9 4.0 4.6 3.8 4.3 3.8 3.7 1.7 Southeast ........................................ 2.3 3.8 4.3 4.2 4.2 3.4 3.9 4.3 3.1 Central ............................................ 2.4 3.0 3.6 3.5 2.6 3.0 2.0 2.1 1.3 West ............................................... 2.8 3.1 3.8 3.7 3.5 4.0 2.8 2.3 1.8

Poverty concentration Less than 10 percent ....................... 2.6 3.2 3.7 3.4 3.7 3.8 2.8 2.4 1.2 10 to 19 percent .............................. 2.5 2.9 2.9 3.7 3.1 2.5 1.8 2.3 1.3 20 percent or more .......................... 2.1 3.3 3.7 3.9 3.6 3.6 3.3 3.1 2.3


A-6

Table 3a. Standard errors for the percent of public school districts with high school grades reporting that various educational options are available to students in the district, and standard errors for the percent of those districts reporting that some or most students at risk of dropping out participate in the educational option, by district characteristics: School year 2010–11


Career/technical high school Career/technical courses at a

regular high school

Dual enrollment in postsecondary courses

with a career/technical focus

Dual enrollment in postsecondary courses with an academic focus Work-based learning

Avail-able in district

How many at-risk students participate









Some Most Some Most Some Most Some Most Some Most

All public school districts .................. 2.0 2.1 1.7 1.3 2.0 2.1 1.9 2.1 0.8 1.6 1.6 0.4 2.0 2.6 1.0

District enrollment size Less than 2,500 .............. 2.8 3.2 2.6 1.9 2.9 3.0 2.7 3.0 1.3 2.4 2.3 † 3.0 4.0 1.5 2,500 to 9,999 ................ 2.2 2.4 2.2 1.6 3.0 2.9 2.0 3.1 0.9 1.5 2.1 0.7 1.9 2.7 1.5 10,000 or more .............. 2.9 3.2 2.4 1.1 2.2 1.8 2.3 3.3 1.1 1.0 2.9 † 1.9 3.2 1.8

Community type City ................................ 4.2 5.5 4.7 2.5 4.3 4.0 2.6 4.9 3.3 2.4 4.4 † 3.9 4.3 2.9 Suburban ....................... 3.0 3.4 2.8 3.0 4.0 3.7 3.3 3.8 1.7 2.4 2.8 1.3 2.8 4.0 2.0 Town ............................. 3.9 4.4 4.2 2.3 3.8 3.9 3.9 4.3 † 3.2 3.1 † 2.8 4.3 1.5 Rural .............................. 3.2 3.4 2.9 2.1 3.3 3.3 2.7 3.3 1.4 2.6 2.7 † 3.1 3.9 1.8

Region Northeast ....................... 2.4 4.2 3.4 3.7 4.4 3.8 4.3 6.7 2.5 3.7 3.9 † 4.3 5.5 1.7 Southeast ....................... 4.4 5.9 5.8 3.4 4.3 4.1 4.1 4.9 † 3.3 3.6 † 4.3 4.3 3.6 Central ........................... 3.0 3.4 2.9 2.8 3.7 3.5 3.1 3.5 1.3 2.4 3.4 † 3.3 4.3 1.6 West .............................. 3.6 4.9 3.4 2.7 3.6 3.8 3.3 3.5 † 3.0 3.7 † 4.2 5.2 2.9

Poverty concentration Less than 10 percent ...... 3.3 3.0 2.0 2.8 3.9 3.5 3.4 4.1 1.4 3.0 3.3 † 2.9 4.0 1.5 10 to 19 percent ............. 2.9 3.3 3.0 2.5 3.6 3.2 3.1 3.2 1.1 2.2 3.2 † 3.1 4.0 1.7 20 percent or more ......... 3.8 4.1 3.7 3.0 3.6 3.5 3.8 3.6 1.5 2.8 3.6 1.3 4.2 5.0 2.8

† Not applicable. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System (FRSS), “Dropout Prevention Services and Programs,” FRSS 99, 2010.

A-7

Table 4a. Standard errors for the percent of public school districts where information is regularly provided to receiving schools about the unique needs of individual at-risk students when the student transitions to a school at a higher instructional level, by district characteristics: School year 2010–11


Information provided to

receiving school

All public school districts ............................................................................................................................................ 1.3

District enrollment size Less than 2,500 .............................................................................................................................................................. 1.7 2,500 to 9,999 ................................................................................................................................................................ 1.1 10,000 or more .............................................................................................................................................................. 2.2

Community type City ................................................................................................................................................................................ 2.8 Suburban ....................................................................................................................................................................... 2.3 Town ............................................................................................................................................................................. 2.4 Rural .............................................................................................................................................................................. 2.0

Region Northeast ....................................................................................................................................................................... 3.9 Southeast ....................................................................................................................................................................... 2.5 Central ........................................................................................................................................................................... 1.9 West .............................................................................................................................................................................. 2.7

Poverty concentration Less than 10 percent ...................................................................................................................................................... 2.8 10 to 19 percent ............................................................................................................................................................. 1.6 20 percent or more ......................................................................................................................................................... 2.1


A-8

Table 5a. Standard errors for the percent of public school districts using various transition supports for all students in any of the district’s schools to help students transition between instructional levels, by district characteristics: School year 2010–11


Transition from elementary to middle/junior high school

Transition from middle/junior high school to high school



Offer an advisement

class



Offer an advisement

class

All public school districts ................... 1.1 1.3 1.6 1.4 1.8 1.8

District enrollment size Less than 2,500 ..................................... 1.5 1.7 2.2 1.8 2.5 2.4 2,500 to 9,999 ....................................... 1.2 1.9 1.8 2.1 2.1 2.4 10,000 or more ..................................... 2.1 2.2 3.1 2.9 2.8 3.0

Community type City ....................................................... 3.5 2.5 3.8 4.3 3.5 4.4 Suburban .............................................. 2.0 2.2 2.5 3.1 2.7 3.0 Town .................................................... 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.9 3.4 4.0 Rural ..................................................... 1.6 2.1 2.5 2.2 2.5 3.0

Region Northeast .............................................. 2.1 2.4 3.9 2.8 4.1 3.8 Southeast .............................................. 1.8 3.0 3.3 2.2 3.7 4.2 Central .................................................. 2.2 2.5 2.7 2.8 3.3 3.2 West ..................................................... 2.1 2.4 3.0 3.0 3.3 4.2

Poverty concentration Less than 10 percent ............................. 2.0 2.2 2.5 3.2 3.2 3.5 10 to 19 percent .................................... 1.9 2.6 3.0 2.0 2.7 2.6 20 percent or more ................................ 1.8 2.4 2.8 2.6 3.1 3.8


A-9

Table 6a. Standard errors for the percent of public school districts using various types of mentors in any of their schools specifically to address the needs of students at risk of dropping out, by instructional level of the school in which mentors are used and district characteristics: School year 2010–11


Student mentors

School counselors, teachers, or school administrators who formally mentor students

Adult employed by the district whose only job

is to mentor students Community volunteers


school

Offered in middle/

junior high school

Offered in high

school


school

Offered in middle/

junior high school

Offered in high

school


school

Offered in middle/

junior high school

Offered in high

school


school

Offered in middle/

junior high school

Offered in high

school

All public school districts ................... 1.6 1.7 2.1 1.6 1.5 1.6 0.9 1.0 1.3 1.5 1.6 1.5

District enrollment size Less than 2,500 ............... 2.1 2.4 3.0 2.2 1.9 2.2 1.3 1.4 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.0 2,500 to 9,999 ................. 2.4 1.8 2.2 1.7 2.1 1.9 1.4 1.3 1.4 2.8 2.6 2.6 10,000 or more ............... 3.6 3.4 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.2 1.8 1.9 2.4 2.7 3.0 2.8

Community type City ................................. 4.3 4.2 4.5 4.0 3.9 3.9 2.6 3.0 3.5 4.4 4.1 4.5 Suburban ........................ 2.3 2.6 3.2 2.9 2.9 2.8 1.5 1.5 1.7 2.2 2.0 2.9 Town .............................. 3.9 3.7 3.8 3.7 3.3 3.6 2.0 2.3 2.8 3.9 3.6 3.3 Rural ............................... 2.2 2.5 3.1 2.6 2.4 2.4 1.4 1.6 2.0 2.1 2.3 2.2

Region Northeast ........................ 3.7 3.1 4.0 4.2 4.1 4.4 1.7 2.3 2.4 3.2 2.8 3.0 Southeast ........................ 3.8 3.1 2.9 4.3 3.9 3.8 1.9 1.9 2.4 4.4 4.6 4.5 Central ............................ 3.3 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.2 2.6 1.6 1.8 1.8 2.7 2.5 2.5 West ............................... 2.6 3.1 3.3 3.7 3.0 3.0 1.8 2.0 2.8 3.0 3.0 3.4

Poverty concentration Less than 10 percent ....... 2.7 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.0 3.2 1.6 1.7 2.0 2.6 2.8 3.3 10 to 19 percent .............. 2.8 2.4 3.2 3.0 2.7 2.1 1.0 1.6 1.8 2.4 2.2 2.1 20 percent or more .......... 2.3 2.6 3.2 2.9 3.0 3.5 2.1 2.2 2.9 3.0 3.3 3.6


A-10

Table 7a. Standard errors for the percent of public school districts using a formal program designed to reduce behavioral problems in schools or classrooms, by instructional level of the school in which it is used and district characteristics: School year 2010–11


Use a formal program designed to reduce behavioral problems Elementary

schools Middle/junior

high schools High

school

All public school districts ................................................. 1.6 1.7 1.5

District enrollment size Less than 2,500 ................................................................... 2.2 2.4 2.1 2,500 to 9,999 ..................................................................... 1.8 2.0 1.9 10,000 or more ................................................................... 1.5 1.6 2.6

Community type City ..................................................................................... 2.6 3.6 3.8 Suburban ............................................................................ 2.9 3.1 3.5 Town .................................................................................. 3.0 3.6 3.4 Rural ................................................................................... 2.7 3.0 2.3

Region Northeast ............................................................................ 3.7 4.2 4.1 Southeast ............................................................................ 4.0 4.1 4.1 Central ................................................................................ 2.9 3.2 2.8 West ................................................................................... 3.7 3.4 3.6

Poverty concentration Less than 10 percent ........................................................... 2.7 2.8 3.4 10 to 19 percent .................................................................. 2.9 3.0 2.7 20 percent or more .............................................................. 3.4 3.2 2.9


A-11

Table 8a. Standard errors for the percentage distribution of public school districts reporting the extent to which various factors are used in their district to identify students who are at risk of dropping out, by district characteristics: School year 2010–11


Truancy or excessive absences

Academic failure

Failure on state standardized tests

Behaviors that warrant suspension or expulsion

Behaviors that warrant other disciplinary action

Not at all or small

extent

Mod-erate

extent Large extent

Not at all or small

extent

Mod-erate

extent Large extent

Not at all or small

extent

Mod-erate

extent Large extent

Not at all or small

extent

Mod-erate

extent Large extent

Not at all or small

extent

Mod-erate

extent Large extent

All public school districts ...................................... 1.1 1.7 1.9 1.1 1.2 1.5 1.4 1.7 1.4 1.4 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.4

District enrollment size Less than 2,500 ........................................................ 1.6 2.2 2.6 1.6 1.6 2.1 2.0 2.3 1.8 1.9 2.4 2.4 2.5 2.4 1.9 2,500 to 9,999 .......................................................... 0.8 1.9 2.1 0.6 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.9 2.3 1.1 2.4 2.1 1.8 2.2 1.9 10,000 or more ........................................................ 1.2 2.2 2.2 † 1.4 1.3 2.1 2.7 2.3 1.4 1.9 2.5 2.0 2.2 2.2

Community type City .......................................................................... 1.4 3.6 3.8 1.4 2.5 2.8 2.6 4.2 4.3 2.0 4.0 4.2 3.2 4.2 3.8 Suburban ................................................................. 2.2 2.4 3.4 2.1 2.0 2.9 2.5 3.2 3.4 2.6 3.0 3.2 3.2 2.9 3.2 Town ....................................................................... 2.0 2.9 3.8 † 2.5 2.7 3.5 4.1 3.3 2.2 3.5 3.4 3.2 3.7 3.4 Rural ........................................................................ 2.1 2.4 2.8 2.1 1.7 2.4 2.6 2.6 2.1 2.5 2.7 2.9 2.7 2.6 2.3

Region Northeast ................................................................. 3.1 3.7 4.3 3.0 2.5 3.5 3.7 3.4 3.3 3.6 4.1 4.1 4.2 4.2 3.7 Southeast ................................................................. † 3.2 3.3 † 2.9 3.0 3.3 4.3 4.2 1.9 4.2 4.1 3.2 4.3 4.1 Central ..................................................................... 1.9 3.4 3.5 1.8 2.6 3.0 3.0 2.7 2.6 2.8 3.5 3.3 3.2 3.3 2.6 West ........................................................................ 2.3 2.9 3.5 2.3 2.9 3.0 3.5 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.3 2.5

Poverty concentration Less than 10 percent ................................................ 2.8 3.0 3.4 2.2 2.3 3.1 3.0 3.2 2.8 3.3 3.2 3.0 3.6 3.3 2.7 10 to 19 percent ....................................................... 1.7 2.4 2.8 1.8 1.9 2.2 2.5 3.0 2.3 2.1 2.6 3.1 2.8 2.5 2.3 20 percent or more ................................................... 2.4 3.0 3.6 2.2 2.8 3.4 2.9 2.7 3.3 2.6 3.3 3.3 3.4 3.4 2.3


A-12

Table 8a. Standard errors for the percentage distribution of public school districts reporting the extent to which various factors are used in their district to identify students who are at risk of dropping out, by district characteristics: School year 2010–11—Continued


Involvement with the criminal justice system

Involvement with social services or foster care

Pregnancy/teen parenthood Substance abuse Learning disability Mental health problems

Not at all or small

extent

Mod-erate

extent Large extent

Not at all or small

extent

Mod-erate

extent Large extent

Not at all or small

extent

Mod-erate

extent Large extent

Not at all or small

extent

Mod-erate

extent Large extent

Not at all or small

extent

Mod-erate

extent Large extent

Not at all or small

extent

Mod-erate

extent Large extent

All public school districts .................. 1.5 1.6 1.7 2.0 1.9 1.2 1.8 1.7 1.5 1.6 1.9 1.6 1.7 1.4 1.3 2.0 1.9 1.3

District enrollment size Less than 2,500 .............. 2.1 2.1 2.3 2.7 2.5 1.5 2.4 2.3 1.9 2.1 2.6 2.0 2.3 1.9 1.6 2.7 2.6 1.7 2,500 to 9,999 ................ 1.5 1.9 2.2 2.5 2.2 2.1 1.8 1.8 2.2 1.8 2.5 2.3 1.7 2.3 2.1 2.1 2.2 1.6 10,000 or more .............. 1.7 2.1 2.6 3.2 3.7 3.2 2.5 2.8 3.2 2.7 3.1 3.7 2.4 2.8 2.5 2.8 3.6 2.9

Community type City ................................ 2.8 3.5 3.9 3.7 4.0 3.7 3.2 3.5 3.8 3.1 3.9 4.1 3.4 4.3 3.6 3.2 4.1 4.0 Suburban ....................... 2.9 2.8 2.9 3.2 3.0 1.9 2.9 2.4 2.7 3.5 3.1 3.2 3.0 2.8 2.8 3.2 3.2 2.3 Town ............................. 2.9 3.9 4.2 3.6 4.0 3.5 3.4 3.7 3.5 3.3 3.9 4.0 3.6 3.7 3.4 3.5 4.2 2.7 Rural .............................. 2.8 2.3 2.6 3.3 2.9 1.6 3.2 2.5 2.2 2.6 2.8 2.1 2.5 2.4 2.1 3.1 2.8 2.1

Region Northeast ....................... 4.0 3.4 3.4 3.9 3.6 2.8 4.1 3.2 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.7 4.1 4.1 3.1 4.1 3.8 2.3 Southeast ....................... 3.2 3.8 4.2 3.9 4.0 3.0 3.7 4.1 3.8 3.8 4.0 3.5 4.0 4.0 4.2 3.9 4.5 3.4 Central ........................... 3.0 3.3 3.1 3.1 3.1 2.2 3.4 2.9 2.7 3.3 3.4 2.5 3.6 2.7 2.7 3.8 3.7 2.1 West .............................. 3.2 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 2.1 3.7 3.2 2.6 3.0 3.0 2.7 3.1 3.1 2.4 3.3 3.1 2.6

Poverty concentration Less than 10 percent ...... 3.0 3.1 3.3 3.4 3.0 2.2 3.3 2.5 2.6 3.0 2.7 2.7 3.5 3.1 2.3 3.7 3.5 2.1 10 to 19 percent ............. 2.6 2.9 2.7 3.1 2.5 2.1 3.1 2.8 2.3 2.4 3.0 2.7 2.7 2.4 2.3 3.1 2.8 2.4 20 percent or more ......... 3.2 2.9 3.0 3.6 3.6 2.0 3.6 3.7 3.1 3.5 3.6 2.8 3.2 3.2 2.7 3.2 3.0 2.4


A-13

Table 8a. Standard errors for the percentage distribution of public school districts reporting the extent to which various factors are used in their district to identify students who are at risk of dropping out, by district characteristics: School year 2010–11—Continued


Observed change in student attitude or life conditions

Homelessness or frequent address change Limited English proficiency Migrant status Other

Not at all or small

extent

Mod-erate

extent Large extent

Not at all or small

extent

Mod-erate

extent Large extent

Not at all or small

extent

Mod-erate

extent Large extent

Not at all or small

extent

Mod-erate

extent Large extent

Not at all or small

extent

Mod-erate

extent Large extent

All public school districts .................. 1.5 1.8 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.2 1.6 1.5 1.1 0.4 0.3 0.3

District enrollment size Less than 2,500 .............. 2.0 2.4 2.2 2.4 2.5 2.2 2.4 2.3 1.6 2.1 2.1 1.4 0.5 † † 2,500 to 9,999 ................ 1.9 2.3 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.5 2.2 2.4 2.0 2.2 1.6 1.5 0.8 0.5 0.7 10,000 or more .............. 1.5 3.9 3.6 1.7 2.5 3.1 2.4 2.4 2.5 3.1 2.5 3.0 1.3 0.9 0.9

Community type City ................................ 3.4 4.3 3.7 2.9 4.2 4.1 3.9 3.7 3.2 4.2 4.0 1.9 1.5 1.3 0.9 Suburban ....................... 3.3 3.1 2.8 3.2 3.1 2.6 3.2 2.8 2.2 2.4 2.0 1.7 0.7 † 0.6 Town ............................. 3.3 3.6 3.7 3.0 3.1 3.9 3.8 3.5 3.1 3.4 2.9 2.2 1.1 † † Rural .............................. 2.5 2.6 2.3 3.3 2.9 2.8 2.7 2.5 1.6 2.5 2.4 1.6 0.6 † †

Region Northeast ....................... 3.5 4.1 3.0 3.5 3.1 2.9 3.3 2.9 2.1 3.1 2.7 1.9 1.5 1.2 † Southeast ....................... 3.8 4.2 3.8 3.6 3.9 4.2 4.0 3.8 2.9 4.0 3.7 2.7 0.8 † 0.6 Central ........................... 3.0 3.4 2.7 3.5 2.9 2.8 3.1 3.1 1.7 3.3 3.0 1.7 0.2 † † West .............................. 3.2 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.0 3.3 3.4 3.2 2.6 3.0 2.5 2.1 0.7 † 0.7

Poverty concentration Less than 10 percent ...... 3.2 3.3 2.6 3.4 3.4 2.5 2.9 2.6 1.6 2.7 2.5 1.5 0.6 0.3 0.5 10 to 19 percent ............. 2.4 2.8 2.5 3.0 2.8 2.7 3.2 2.8 2.1 2.8 2.6 1.7 0.8 0.6 0.6 20 percent or more ......... 3.0 3.3 3.1 3.7 3.2 3.3 3.3 3.1 2.2 3.1 2.8 2.0 0.6 † †


A-14

Table 9a. Standard errors for the percent of public school districts reporting that they work with various entities to address the needs of students at risk of dropping out, by district characteristics: School year 2010–11


Child protective

services

Com-munity mental health

agency

State or local

government agencies

that provide financial

assistance to needy families

Churches or community

organiza-tions

Crisis interven-

tion center

Juvenile assessment

center Local

business

Drug and/or

alcohol clinic

Health clinic

or hospital

Family planning/

child placement

agency

Child care centers/

providers for children

of teen parents

Job placement

center

All public school districts .................. 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.8 1.6 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.6

District enrollment size Less than 2,500 .............. 2.2 2.1 2.2 1.9 2.4 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.1 2,500 to 9,999 ................ 1.4 1.4 2.2 2.1 2.4 2.0 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.1 2.2 2.3 10,000 or more .............. 1.2 1.5 1.4 1.6 2.1 2.7 2.0 1.5 2.2 2.8 3.7 2.3

Community type City ................................ 2.0 2.6 2.5 3.3 3.9 4.1 3.8 4.0 4.2 3.7 4.0 4.0 Suburban ....................... 2.7 2.8 3.2 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.6 3.2 2.9 2.8 2.5 2.6 Town ............................. 2.3 3.2 3.0 3.5 3.7 3.6 4.1 3.7 3.8 4.1 3.4 3.4 Rural .............................. 2.4 2.3 2.5 2.1 2.6 2.1 2.5 2.3 2.5 2.1 2.4 2.2

Region Northeast ....................... 2.4 2.6 4.0 4.1 4.1 3.6 4.2 4.0 4.1 4.1 4.0 4.1 Southeast ....................... 3.0 2.8 3.7 3.9 4.1 4.1 4.5 4.0 4.3 4.1 4.2 3.9 Central ........................... 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 3.1 3.4 2.5 2.3 2.9 2.9 2.4 West .............................. 2.6 3.5 3.6 3.1 2.9 3.0 2.6 2.5 3.8 2.6 2.3 2.3

Poverty concentration Less than 10 percent ...... 3.1 3.0 2.7 3.3 3.4 3.0 3.4 3.4 2.8 3.2 2.7 3.1 10 to 19 percent ............. 2.2 2.9 2.8 2.5 2.8 2.8 3.0 2.2 2.9 2.7 2.8 2.3 20 percent or more ......... 2.8 2.8 3.4 3.6 3.5 2.9 3.2 3.3 3.8 3.3 3.0 2.9


A-15

Table 10a. Standard errors for the percent of public school districts reporting that they provide information about the employment or financial consequences of dropping out and the percent of public school districts reporting that they provide information about various education and training options to students who appear highly likely to drop out, by district characteristics: School year 2010–11


Employment or financial consequences of

dropping out

Education and training options Alternative schools or

programs Job training/GED

combination programs GED or adult education

programs Job training programs Yes, standard

procedure with all students

Yes, with some

students


with all students

Yes, with some

students


with all students

Yes, with some

students


with all students

Yes, with some

students


with all students

Yes, with some

students

All public school districts ........ 1.8 1.7 1.4 1.2 2.0 1.5 2.1 1.5 1.6 1.7

District enrollment size Less than 2,500 .......................... 2.4 2.3 1.9 1.7 2.8 2.0 2.9 2.1 2.2 2.2 2,500 to 9,999 ............................ 2.2 2.4 1.9 1.8 2.1 2.5 1.8 2.1 2.0 2.8 10,000 or more .......................... 2.8 3.0 1.7 1.6 3.5 3.2 3.1 2.6 2.7 3.1

Community type City ............................................ 4.1 4.0 3.7 3.5 4.4 3.8 4.4 3.6 4.2 4.2 Suburban ................................... 3.2 3.0 2.6 2.4 2.5 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.1 2.9 Town ......................................... 4.2 3.2 3.1 2.7 3.9 3.7 4.1 3.4 3.7 3.5 Rural .......................................... 2.5 2.7 2.2 1.9 2.8 2.3 3.0 2.2 2.4 2.3

Region Northeast ................................... 4.6 3.4 3.5 2.5 3.7 2.8 3.7 2.8 3.5 3.4 Southeast ................................... 4.2 4.1 4.0 3.5 4.4 3.6 4.2 4.0 4.5 4.5 Central ....................................... 2.6 2.2 3.0 2.3 2.8 2.6 3.2 2.7 2.7 3.2 West .......................................... 3.6 3.6 3.1 2.5 3.4 2.6 3.8 3.0 3.0 2.8

Poverty concentration Less than 10 percent .................. 3.6 2.9 3.0 2.5 3.4 2.4 3.1 2.7 2.9 2.9 10 to 19 percent ......................... 2.8 2.7 2.8 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.9 2.5 2.5 2.4 20 percent or more ..................... 3.4 3.4 3.7 2.8 4.5 3.3 4.4 3.0 3.7 3.3


A-16

Table 11a. Standard errors for the percentage distribution of public school districts reporting whether the district tries to determine the status of students who do not return to school in the fall as expected, and the standard errors for the percentage distribution reporting whether the district follows up with students who dropped out before the next school year to encourage them to return, by district characteristics: School year 2010–11


District tries to determine status of students who do not return in the fall as expected

District follows up with students who dropped out before the next school year to encourage them to return

Yes, for all students

Yes, with some

students No Yes, for all

students

Yes, with some

students No

All public school districts ..................... 1.5 1.1 1.2 2.0 1.8 1.5

District enrollment size Less than 2,500 ....................................... 2.0 1.5 1.6 2.7 2.5 2.0 2,500 to 9,999 ......................................... 1.7 1.3 1.2 2.3 1.8 2.0 10,000 or more ....................................... 2.7 2.8 1.3 2.4 2.6 1.7

Community type City ......................................................... 3.3 2.8 2.5 3.8 4.2 3.3 Suburban ................................................ 3.2 2.3 2.6 2.2 2.8 3.1 Town ...................................................... 3.0 2.7 2.0 4.1 3.2 3.3 Rural ....................................................... 2.2 1.6 1.9 2.9 2.5 2.3

Region Northeast ................................................ 4.0 2.6 3.3 3.5 3.7 3.6 Southeast ................................................ 3.8 3.3 2.2 4.3 4.0 3.0 Central .................................................... 2.4 1.9 2.0 3.1 2.9 3.0 West ....................................................... 2.8 2.4 2.4 3.4 3.0 2.9

Poverty concentration Less than 10 percent ............................... 2.4 1.8 2.4 2.9 2.2 2.4 10 to 19 percent ...................................... 2.3 2.1 1.4 3.5 3.2 2.9 20 percent or more .................................. 3.5 3.0 2.4 3.1 3.1 2.8


A-17

Table 12a. Standard errors for the percent of public school districts reporting that they use various types of information to determine whether to implement additional district-wide dropout prevention efforts, by district characteristics: School year 2010–11

District characteristic Dropout

rates Graduation

rates

Number of students

attending adult

education/ GED

programs

Number of students

taking or passing the

GED test Attendance

rates

Number or percentage of students

failing courses or held back

Number of expulsions

or other disciplinary

actions

State standardized

test scores

Feedback from a

district-administered

parent or student survey Other

All public school districts ..... 1.4 1.5 1.7 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.9 1.8 1.6 0.3

District enrollment size Less than 2,500 ....................... 2.0 2.0 2.4 2.2 2.0 1.8 2.6 2.5 2.1 † 2,500 to 9,999 ......................... 1.5 1.6 1.6 2.0 1.4 2.0 2.0 1.9 2.2 0.7 10,000 or more ....................... 2.0 1.4 2.3 2.8 1.3 2.1 1.9 2.3 2.0 1.5

Community type City ......................................... 2.8 2.7 3.7 3.5 2.5 3.1 3.0 2.6 3.8 2.3 Suburban ................................ 3.2 3.1 2.9 2.3 2.8 2.9 2.9 3.3 3.2 0.4 Town ...................................... 3.2 2.8 3.3 3.4 2.9 2.9 4.0 3.2 3.8 † Rural ....................................... 2.1 2.3 2.9 2.8 2.2 2.0 2.7 2.9 2.5 0.3

Region Northeast ................................ 3.2 3.2 3.7 3.5 3.2 3.1 4.0 4.4 3.7 0.7 Southeast ................................ 2.0 2.2 4.1 4.0 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.6 4.3 0.8 Central .................................... 2.3 2.2 2.9 2.8 2.2 2.5 2.9 3.1 2.8 † West ....................................... 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.8 2.6 3.0 3.3 3.2 3.4 0.5

Poverty concentration Less than 10 percent ............... 3.3 3.1 2.7 2.6 3.5 3.2 3.5 3.6 3.0 0.8 10 to 19 percent ...................... 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.6 2.3 2.5 3.0 3.0 2.9 0.3 20 percent or more .................. 2.5 2.5 2.9 2.7 2.2 3.0 3.4 3.0 3.7 0.6



B-1

Appendix B

Technical Notes


B-3

Technical Notes

Fast Response Survey System

The Fast Response Survey System (FRSS) was established in 1975 by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), U.S. Department of Education. FRSS is designed to collect issue-oriented data within a relatively short time frame. FRSS collects data from state education agencies, local education agencies, public and private elementary and secondary schools, public school teachers, and public libraries. To ensure minimal burden on respondents, the surveys are generally limited to three pages of questions, with a response burden of about 30 minutes per respondent. Sample sizes are relatively small (usually about 1,200 to 1,800 respondents per survey) so that data collection can be completed quickly. Data are weighted to produce national estimates of the sampled education sector. The sample size permits limited breakouts by analysis variables. However, as the number of categories within any single analysis variable increases, the sample size within categories decreases, which results in larger sampling errors for the breakouts by analysis variables.

Sample Design

The sample for the FRSS survey of Dropout Prevention Services and Programs consisted of 1,200 public school districts in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The nationally representative sample was selected from the 2008–09 NCES Common Core of Data (CCD) Local Education Agency (School District) Universe file, which was the most current file available at the time of selection. The sampling frame included 13,563 regular public school districts. For purposes of this study, “regular” school districts included any local school district that was not a component of a supervisory union (i.e., Education Agency type 1 on the CCD) or was a local school district component of a supervisory union sharing a superintendent and administrative services with other local school districts (i.e., Education Agency type 2 on the CCD). Excluded from the sampling frame were districts in the outlying U.S. territories and districts with no enrollments or missing enrollments.

The school district sampling frame was stratified by the instructional level of the schools operated by the district and enrollment size class. Information about instructional level of the schools in the district was obtained from the 2008-09 CCD public school universe file. Elementary districts were those with only elementary schools, while unified/secondary districts included at least one secondary school. Within the two categories of instructional level, the sample was allocated to size strata in rough proportion to the aggregate square root of the enrollment in the stratum. Districts in the sampling frame were then sorted by community type3 and region to induce additional implicit stratification. Within each primary stratum, districts were selected systematically and with equal probabilities.

3 The community type variable is based on the urban-centric district locale variable from the 2008-09 CCD (ULOCAL08), discussed further in the Definitions of Analysis Variables section of this report.

Data Collection and Response Rates

Questionnaires and cover letters were mailed to the superintendent of each sampled school district in September 2010. The letter introduced the study and requested that the questionnaire be completed by the person most knowledgeable about dropout prevention services and programs in the district. Respondents were offered the option of completing the survey via the Web. Telephone follow-up for survey nonresponse and data clarification was initiated in October 2010 and completed in January 2011.

B-4

Of the 1,200 districts in the sample, 5 districts were found to be ineligible for the survey because they were administrative entities only that did not operate any schools. This left a total of 1,195 eligible districts in the sample. Completed questionnaires were received from 1,086 districts, or 91 percent of the eligible districts (table B-1). Of the districts that completed the survey, 61 percent completed it via the Web, 27 percent completed it by mail, 7 percent completed it by fax or email, and 5 percent completed it by telephone. The weighted response rate using the initial base weights was 89 percent. The weighted number of eligible districts in the survey represents the estimated universe of public school districts in the 50 states and the District of Columbia with one or more regular schools.4

4 For more details about the development of survey weights, see the section of this report on Sampling Errors.

Table B-1. Number and percent of responding public school districts in the study sample, and estimated number and percent of public school districts the sample represents, by selected district characteristics: School year 2010–11

Selected characteristic Respondent sample (unweighted) National estimate (weighted)

Number Percent Number Percent

All public school districts .............................................. 1,086 100 13,400 100

District enrollment size Less than 2,500 .................................................................... 442 41 9,400 71 2,500 to 9,999 ...................................................................... 395 36 3,000 23 10,000 or more ..................................................................... 249 23 900 7

Community type City ...................................................................................... 154 14 700 5 Suburban .............................................................................. 318 29 2,600 20 Town .................................................................................... 206 19 2,400 18 Rural .................................................................................... 408 38 7,600 57

Region Northeast .............................................................................. 223 21 2,900 21 Southeast .............................................................................. 202 19 1,500 12 Central ................................................................................. 326 30 4,800 36 West ..................................................................................... 335 31 4,100 31

Poverty concentration Less than 10 percent ............................................................. 335 31 4,000 30 10 to 19 percent .................................................................... 442 41 5,500 41 20 percent or more ............................................................... 309 28 3,900 29

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System (FRSS), “Dropout Prevention Services and Programs,” FRSS 99, 2010.

Imputation for Item Nonresponse

Although item nonresponse items was very low (less than 1 percent for any item), missing data were imputed for the items with a response rate of less than 100 percent.5

5 Per NCES standard 4-1-2, all missing questionnaire data are imputed (all items are considered key data items for this survey).

The missing items were all categorical data, such as whether districts work with churches or community organizations to address the needs of students at risk of dropping out. The missing data were imputed using a “hot-deck” approach to obtain a “donor” district from which the imputed values were derived. Under the hot-deck approach, a donor district that matched selected characteristics of the district with missing data (the recipient district) was identified. The matching characteristics included community type, geographic region, district enrollment size, and high and low grades offered in the district. In addition, relevant questionnaire items were used to form appropriate imputation

B-5

groupings. Once a donor was found, it was used to obtain the imputed values for the district with missing data. The imputed values were the corresponding value from the donor district.

Data Reliability

Although the district survey on dropout prevention services and programs was designed to account for sampling error and to minimize nonsampling error, estimates produced from the data collected are subject to both types of error. Sampling error occurs because the data are collected from a sample rather than a census of the population, and nonsampling errors are errors made during the collection and processing of the data.

Sampling Errors

The responses were weighted to produce national estimates (table B-1). The weights were designed to reflect the variable probabilities of selection of the sampled districts and were adjusted for differential unit (questionnaire) nonresponse. The nonresponse weighting adjustments were made within classes defined by variables used in sampling and expected to be correlated with response propensity: district level (i.e., elementary or unified/secondary), district size class, community type, and region. Within the final weighting classes, the base weights (i.e., the reciprocal of districts’ probabilities of selection) of the responding districts were inflated by the inverse of the weighted response rate for the class. The findings in this report are estimates based on the sample selected and, consequently, are subject to sampling variability. Jackknife replication was used to estimate the sampling variability of the estimates and to test for statistically significant differences between estimates.

The standard error is a measure of the variability of an estimate due to sampling. It indicates the variability of a sample estimate that would be obtained from all possible samples of a given design and size. Standard errors are used as a measure of the precision expected from a particular sample. If all possible samples were surveyed under similar conditions, intervals of 1.96 standard errors below to 1.96 standard errors above a particular statistic would include the true population parameter being estimated in about 95 percent of the samples. This is a 95 percent confidence interval. For example, the estimated percent of districts with high school grades that offered credit recovery courses/programs to address the needs of students at risk of dropping out is 87.6 percent, and the standard error is 1.33 percent (tables 2 and 2a). The 95 percent confidence interval for the statistic extends from [87.6 – (1.33 x 1.96)] to [87.6 + (1.33 x 1.96)], or from 85.0 to 90.2 percent. The 1.96 is the critical value for a two-sided statistical test at the 0.05 significance level (where 0.05 indicates the 5 percent of all possible samples that would be outside the range of the confidence interval).

Because the data from the FRSS district survey on dropout prevention services and programs were collected using a complex sampling design, the variances of the estimates from this survey (e.g., estimates of proportions) are typically different from what would be expected from data collected with a simple random sample. Not taking the complex sample design into account can lead to an underestimation or overestimation of the standard errors associated with such estimates. To generate accurate standard errors for the estimates in this report, standard errors were computed using a technique known as jackknife replication. As with any replication method, jackknife replication involves constructing a number of subsamples (replicates) from the full sample and computing the statistic of interest for each replicate. The mean square error of the replicate estimates around the full sample estimate provides an estimate of the variance of the statistic. To construct the replications, 100 stratified subsamples of the full sample were created and then dropped one at a time to define 100 jackknife replicates. A computer program (WesVar) was used to calculate the estimates of standard errors.6

6 The WesVar program and documentation is available for download at http://www.westat.com/Westat/expertise/information_systems/WesVar/index.cfm.

B-6

All specific statements of comparisons made in this report have been tested for statistical significance at the .05 level using Student’s t-statistic to ensure that the differences are larger than those that might be expected due to sampling variation. Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not included. Student’s t values were computed to test the difference between estimates with the following formula:

22

21

21

sese

EEt+

−=

where E1 and E2 are the estimates to be compared and se1 and se2 are their corresponding standard errors. Many of the variables examined are related to one another, and complex interactions and relationships have not been explored.

Nonsampling Errors

Nonsampling error is the term used to describe variations in the estimates that may be caused by population coverage limitations and data collection, processing, and reporting procedures. The sources of nonsampling errors are typically problems like unit and item nonresponse, differences in respondents’ interpretations of the meaning of questions, response differences related to the particular time the survey was conducted, and mistakes made during data preparation. It is difficult to identify and estimate either the amount of nonsampling error or the bias caused by this error. To minimize the potential for nonsampling error, this study used a variety of procedures, including a pretest of the questionnaire with school district respondents. The pretest provided the opportunity to check for consistency of interpretation of questions and definitions and to eliminate ambiguous items. The questionnaire and instructions were also extensively reviewed by NCES. In addition, manual and machine editing of the questionnaire responses were conducted to check the data for accuracy and consistency. Cases with missing or inconsistent items were recontacted by telephone to resolve problems. Data were keyed with 100 percent verification for surveys received by mail, fax, or telephone.

Definitions of Analysis Variables

Many of the district characteristics, described below, may be related to each other. For example, district enrollment size and community type are related, with city districts typically being larger than rural districts. Other relationships between these analysis variables may exist. However, this First Look report focuses on national estimates and bivariate relationships between the analysis variables and questionnaire variables rather than more complex analyses.

District Enrollment Size—This variable indicates the total number of students enrolled in the district based on data from the 2008–09 CCD Local Education Agency Universe file. The variable was collapsed into the three categories below. These institution size categories are standard for FRSS district surveys and reflect size categories used to determine an approximately optimum allocation of the sample for robust statistical reporting.

Less than 2,500 students 2,500 to 9,999 students 10,000 or more students

Community Type—A created variable collapsed from the 12-category urban-centric district locale code (ULOCALE) that was assigned using the 2000 Decennial Census data. Data were obtained from the 2008–09 CCD Local Education Agency Universe file. The data were collapsed into four categories:

B-7

City—Includes large, midsize, and small principal cities

Suburban—Includes large, midsize, and small urbanized territories outside principal cities

Town—Includes fringe, distant, and remote territories that are inside an urban cluster

Rural—Includes fringe, distant, and remote territories that are outside of urbanized areas and urban clusters

Region—This variable classifies districts into one of the four geographic regions used by the Bureau of Economic Analysis of the U.S. Department of Commerce. Data were obtained from the 2008–09 CCD Local Education Agency Universe file. The geographic regions are as follows:

Northeast—Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont

Southeast—Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia

Central—Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin

West—Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming

Poverty Concentration—This variable indicates the percentage of children in the district ages 5–17 in families living below the poverty level, based on the Title I data provided to the U.S. Department of Education by the U.S. Census Bureau, “Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates.” For detailed information on the methodology used to create these estimates, please refer to http://www.census.gov/did/www/saipe/index.html.

The variable was collapsed into the three categories below. These poverty concentration categories are standard for FRSS district surveys and reflect size categories used to determine an approximately optimum allocation of the sample for robust statistical reporting.

Less than 10 percent 10 to 19 percent 20 percent or more

Grades Taught in the District—Many of the tables in this report are subset by the grade levels taught in the sampled school districts. Data on the low and high grades taught in the district were obtained from the 2008-09 CCD Local Education Agency Universe file (GSLO08 and GSHI08), and updated based on information received from districts during data collection. Based on the low and high grades taught in the district, districts were counted as having elementary school grades if they taught grade 5 or below, regardless of whether they also taught higher grades; middle/junior high school grades if they taught grades 7 or 8, regardless of the other grades taught in the district; and high school grades if they taught grades 9 or above, regardless of whether they also taught lower grades. Using these definitions, 96 percent of the districts were counted as having elementary school grades, 93 percent were counted as having middle/junior high school grades, and 81 percent were counted as having high school grades.

Instructional Level―In survey questions that asked respondents to report by instructional level, the grade ranges of elementary school, middle/junior high, and high school were not defined for district respondents.

B-8

Definitions of Terms Used in This Report

The following is the exact wording of the definitions that were included on the questionnaire.

An advisement class is one that is held regularly (e.g., weekly) and may include lessons on organizational and study skills, information on courses needed for graduation, and information about careers and college preparation.

Alternative schools and programs are designed to address the needs of students that typically cannot be met in regular schools. The students who attend alternative schools and programs are typically at risk of educational failure (as indicated by poor grades, truancy, disruptive behavior, pregnancy, or similar factors associated with temporary or permanent withdrawal from school).

Career/technical high schools are those that provide formal preparation for semiskilled, skilled, technical, or professional occupations. For purposes of this survey, please include career/technical high schools that are available to students in your district and are administered either by your district or by a regional entity.

Credit recovery courses/programs are opportunities allowing students to recover course credits from classes they have missed or failed.

Decelerated curriculum refers to a curriculum that is spread over a longer period of time than a regular course. An example of a decelerated curriculum is an algebra 1 course that is spread over 2 years or two class periods for an entire year. This definition applies to any curriculum that is decelerated specifically to meet the needs of students who may be at risk of failing a course.

Electronic warning system is an electronic database used to identify students who may be at risk of dropping out. The system includes multiple pieces of student information, such as attendance, grades, and behavioral referrals, one or more of which may be used to identify at-risk students.

Formal program to reduce behavioral problems refers to a systematic program that is specifically designed to reduce behavioral problems and is implemented at the classroom or school level.

Guided study hall/academic support period is typically for students who are struggling academically; teachers assist students by helping them manage their time and their assignments, and either provide or get them the academic support/tutoring that they need to complete homework and be successful in their classes. Teachers may also provide academic support in specific academic areas such as math, reading, or social studies.

Students who are highly likely to drop out of school may include those with multiple risk factors, such as many unexcused absences, academic failure, or reoccurring behavior that warrants suspension or expulsion, or those who provide other strong indications that they are dropping out.

Job training and GED combination programs are programs that combine both job training and GED preparation courses. This includes programs such as Job Corps or the Army/National Guard GED program or other similar programs.

Job training programs are those that provide formal preparation for semiskilled, skilled, or technical occupations. These programs do not include GED preparation or result in a high school diploma.

Juvenile assessment center is a centralized receiving, processing, and intervention facility that brings together community services for youth and families who have, or are likely to have, contact with the legal system.

A remediation class is any class intended to bring students who are academically below grade level up to proficiency.

B-9

Self-paced courses/independent study are opportunities for students to work through a course at their own pace, for example, through a computer-based program or packets of work.

Summer bridge programs are programs designed to provide assistance to students before transitioning from one instructional level school to another (e.g., from middle school to high school). These programs may include, but are not limited to, providing academic support, remedial opportunities, study skills, and opportunities to connect to teachers or peers at the new school.

Contact Information

For more information about the survey, contact Jared Coopersmith, Early Childhood, International, and Crosscutting Studies Division, National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20006, e-mail: [email protected]; telephone: (202) 219-7106.


C-1

Appendix C

Questionnaire


C-3

Inmati

on C

opy -

Do N

ot Com

plete

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006–5651 DROPOUT PREVENTION SERVICES AND PROGRAMS FAST RESPONSE SURVEY SYSTEM

FORM APPROVED O.M.B. No.: 1850-0733 EXPIRATION DATE: 06/2012

This survey is authorized by law (Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002, 20 U.S.C. 9543). While participation in this survey is voluntary, your cooperation is critical to make the results of this survey comprehensive, accurate, and timely. Your answers may be used only for statistical purposes and may not be disclosed, or used, in identifiable form for any other purpose unless otherwise compelled by law (Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002, 20 U.S.C. 9573). This survey focuses on dropout prevention services and programs in your district. By dropout prevention services and programs, we mean those that are intended to increase the rate at which students are staying in school, progressing toward graduation, or earning a high school credential. Please answer the survey about dropout prevention services or programs offered by your district or by any of the schools in your district in the current 2010–11 school year. The survey is designed to be completed by the person or persons most knowledgeable about dropout prevention services and programs in your school district. Please consult with others who can help provide the requested information.

IF ABOVE DISTRICT INFORMATION IS INCORRECT, PLEASE UPDATE DIRECTLY ON LABEL.

Name of person completing this form: ___________________________________________________________________

Title/position: ______________________________________________________________________________________

Telephone number: ___________________________________ E-mail: ______________________________________

Best days and times to reach you (in case of questions): ___________________________________________________

THANK YOU. PLEASE KEEP A COPY OF THE SURVEY FOR YOUR RECORDS.

PLEASE RETURN COMPLETED FORM TO: Mail: Priscilla Carver (8599.01.05.03) Westat 1600 Research Boulevard Rockville, Maryland 20850- for3195 Fax: 800-254-0984

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, CONTACT: Priscilla Carver at Westat 800-937-8281, Ext. 4596 or 301-279-4596 E-mail: [email protected]

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is 1850-0733. The time required to complete this information collection is estimated to average 20 minutes per response, including the time to review instructions, search existing data resources, gather the data needed, and complete and review the information collection. If you have any comments concerning the accuracy of the time estimate or suggestions for improving this form, please write to: U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC 20202-4537. If you have any comments or concerns regarding the status of your individual submission of this form, write directly to: National Center for Education Statistics, 1990 K Street, NW, Washington, DC 20006.

FRSS 99, 09/2010

C-4

Infor

mation

Cop

y - D

o Not

Comple

te

Instructions and Definitions Page Please answer the survey about dropout prevention services or programs offered by your district or by any of the schools in your district in the current 2010–11 school year. Dropout prevention services or programs are those that are intended to increase the rate at which students are staying in school, progressing toward graduation, or earning a high school credential.

An advisement class is one that is held regularly (e.g., weekly) and may include lessons on organizational and study skills, information on courses needed for graduation, and information about careers and college preparation.

Alternative schools and programs are designed to address the needs of students that typically cannot be met in regular schools. The students who attend alternative schools and programs are typically at risk of educational failure (as indicated by poor grades, truancy, disruptive behavior, pregnancy, or similar factors associated with temporary or permanent withdrawal from school).

Career/technical high schools are those that provide formal preparation for semiskilled, skilled, technical, or professional occupations. For purposes of this survey, please include career/technical high schools that are available to students in your district and are administered either by your district or by a regional entity.

Credit recovery courses/programs are opportunities allowing students to recover course credits from classes they have missed or failed.

Decelerated curriculum refers to a curriculum that is spread over a longer period of time than a regular course. An example of a decelerated curriculum is an algebra 1 course that is spread over 2 years or two class periods for an entire year. This definition applies to any curriculum that is decelerated specifically to meet the needs of students who may be at risk of failing a course.

Electronic warning system is an electronic database used to identify students who may be at risk of dropping out. The system includes multiple pieces of student information, such as attendance, grades, and behavioral referrals, one or more of which may be used to identify at-risk students.

Formal program to reduce behavioral problems refers to a systematic program that is specifically designed to reduce behavioral problems and is implemented at the classroom or school level.

Guided study hall/academic support period is typically for students who are struggling academically; teachers assist students by helping them manage their time and their assignments, and either provide or get them the academic support/tutoring that they need to complete homework and be successful in their classes. Teachers may also provide academic support in specific academic areas such as math, reading, or social studies.

Students who are highly likely to drop out of school may include those with multiple risk factors, such as many unexcused absences, academic failure, or reoccurring behavior that warrants suspension or expulsion, or those who provide other strong indications that they are dropping out.

Job training and GED combination programs are programs that combine both job training and GED preparation courses. This includes programs such as Job Corps or the Army/National Guard GED program or other similar programs.

Job training programs are those that provide formal preparation for semiskilled, skilled, or technical occupations. These programs do not include GED preparation or result in a high school diploma.

Juvenile Assessment Center is a centralized receiving, processing, and intervention facility that brings together community services for youth and families who have, or are likely to have, contact with the legal system.

A remediation class is any class intended to bring students who are academically below grade level up to proficiency. Self-paced courses/independent study are opportunities for students to work through a course at their own pace, for

example, through a computer-based program or packets of work. Summer bridge programs are programs designed to provide assistance to students before transitioning from one

instructional level school to another (e.g., from middle school to high school). These programs may include, but are not limited to, providing academic support, remedial opportunities, study skills, and opportunities to connect to teachers or peers at the new school.

C-5

Infor

mation

Cop

y - D

o Not

Comple

te

Definitions are provided on the instructions and definitions page for all items marked with an asterisk (*).

1. Are any of the following services or programs offered specifically to address the needs of students at risk of dropping out of school in any of the schools in your district? (Circle one on each line for each instructional level.)

Service/program

Instructional levels Elementary

school Middle/junior high

school High

school Yes No Yes No Yes No

a. Tutoring ............................................................................... 1 2 1 2 1 2 b. Summer school to prevent grade retention ......................... 1 2 1 2 1 2 c. *Remediation classes ........................................................... 1 2 1 2 1 2 d. *Guided study hall/academic support period ........................ 1 2 1 2 1 2 e. *Alternative schools or programs ......................................... 1 2 1 2 1 2 f. After-school programs specifically to address the needs of

students at risk of dropping out ............................................ 1 2 1 2 1 2

2. Are any of the following services or programs offered specifically to address the needs of students at risk of dropping out of school in any of the schools in your district? (Circle one on each line.)

Yes No a. District-administered General Education Development (GED) preparation courses ........................ 1 2 b. Early graduation options for earning a regular diploma ..................................................................... 1 2 c. *Decelerated curriculum for any course (e.g., algebra 1 extended over 2 years or 2 class periods) . 1 2 d. *Credit recovery courses/programs .................................................................................................... 1 2 e. *Self-paced courses (e.g., computer or packet based) for purposes other than credit recovery ...... 1 2 f. Smaller class size .............................................................................................................................. 1 2 g. Flexible school day (e.g., shortened school day, evening classes, or Saturday classes) ................. 1 2 h. *Summer bridge program .................................................................................................................... 1 2

3. Please indicate in part 1 whether the following educational options are available to students in your district. For each option you mark as available, please indicate in part 2 how many students at risk of dropping out participate.

Educational option

1. Available in your district?

2. If available, how many students at risk of dropping out participate?

Yes No

No or few at-risk students

participate

Some at-risk students

participate

Most at-risk students

participate

a. *Career/technical high school (including regional career/technical high schools) .......................................... 1 2 1 2 3

b. Career/technical courses at a regular high school ............ 1 2 1 2 3

c. Dual enrollment in postsecondary courses with a career/technical focus ....................................................... 1 2 1 2 3

d. Dual enrollment in postsecondary courses with an academic focus (e.g., English, math, foreign languages) . 1 2 1 2 3

e. Work-based learning (e.g., internships/apprenticeships) .. 1 2 1 2 3

4. Does your district provide or subsidize child care while teen parents are attending classes? (Circle one.) Yes .................. 1 No .................... 2

5. When a student who is at risk of dropping out is transitioning from a school at one instructional level to a school at a higher instructional level (e.g., from middle school to high school), is information regularly provided to the receiving school about the unique needs of that student? (Circle one.)

Yes .................. 1 No .................... 2

C-6

Infor

mation

Cop

y - D

o Not

Comple

te

6. Are the following supports used in any of the schools in your district to help students transition from a school of one instructional level to a school at a higher instructional level (e.g., from middle school to high school)? (Circle one on each line for each transition.)

Transition support for all students

Transition Elementary to middle/junior high school

Middle/junior high school to

high school Yes No Yes No

a. Assign all students a student mentor upon entry into the new school ........................... 1 2 1 2 b. Assign all students an adult mentor upon entry into the new school ............................. 1 2 1 2 c. Offer an advisement class* for all students during the first year at the new school ....... 1 2 1 2

7. Are any of the following types of mentors used in any of the schools in your district specifically to address the needs of students at risk of dropping out? (Circle one on each line for each instructional level.)

Mentor

Instructional levels Elementary

school Middle/junior high school

High school

Yes No Yes No Yes No a. Student mentors ..................................................................... 1 2 1 2 1 2 b. School counselors, teachers, or school administrators who

formally mentor students ........................................................ 1 2 1 2 1 2 c. Adult mentors employed by the district whose only job is

to mentor students ................................................................. 1 2 1 2 1 2 d. Community volunteers (i.e., volunteers from churches,

community organizations, businesses, etc.) .......................... 1 2 1 2 1 2

8. Do any of the schools in your district use a formal program designed to reduce behavioral problems* in schools or classrooms (e.g., Positive Behavioral Support, Positive Behavioral Intervention System, etc.)? (Circle one for each instructional level.) Yes No a. Elementary school ................................................................. 1 2 b. Middle/junior high school ....................................................... 1 2 c. High school ............................................................................ 1 2

9. Does your district have a standardized method of identifying students who may be at risk of dropping out (e.g., a standardized checklist of at-risk behaviors or an electronic warning system*)? (Circle one.)

Yes .................. 1 No .................... 2

10. To what extent are the following factors used in your district to identify students who are at risk of dropping out? (Circle one on each line.)

Factor Not at all

Small extent

Moderate extent

Large extent

a. Truancy or excessive absences 1 2 3 4 b. Academic failure indicated by grades, accrued course credits, or grade retention 1 2 3 4 c. Failure on state standardized tests 1 2 3 4 d. Behaviors that warrant suspension or expulsion 1 2 3 4 e. Behaviors that warrant other disciplinary action 1 2 3 4 f. Involvement with the criminal justice system 1 2 3 4 g. Involvement with social services or foster care 1 2 3 4 h. Pregnancy/teen parenthood 1 2 3 4 i. Substance abuse 1 2 3 4 j. Learning disability as indicated in an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) 1 2 3 4 k. Mental health problems 1 2 3 4 l. Observed change in student attitude or life conditions 1 2 3 4 m. Homelessness or frequent address change 1 2 3 4 n. Limited English proficiency 1 2 3 4 o. Migrant status 1 2 3 4 p. Other (specify) ____________________________________________________ 1 2 3 4

C-7

Infor

mation

Cop

y - D

o Not

Comple

te

11. Does your district work with any of the following to address the needs of students at risk of dropping out? (Circle one on each line.) Yes No a. Child protective services ................................................................................................................. 1 2 b. Local businesses ............................................................................................................................ 1 2 c. *Juvenile assessment center ........................................................................................................... 1 2 d. Community mental health agency .................................................................................................. 1 2 e. Churches or community organizations (e.g., Boys & Girls Clubs, United Way, Lion’s Clubs) ....... 1 2 f. Job placement center ..................................................................................................................... 1 2 g. Crisis intervention center ................................................................................................................ 1 2 h. Drug and/or alcohol clinic ............................................................................................................... 1 2 i. Family planning/child placement agency ........................................................................................ 1 2 j. Child care centers/providers (i.e., for children of teen parents) ..................................................... 1 2 k. Health clinic or hospital ................................................................................................................... 1 2 l. State or local government agencies that provide financial assistance to needy families ............... 1 2 m. Other(specify) _________________________________________________________________ 1 2

12. When students appear highly likely to drop out of school,* does your district provide information about the employment or financial consequences of dropping out of school? (Circle one.)

Yes, this is standard procedure with all students highly likely to drop out .............. 1 Yes, with some students ......................................................................................... 2 No ............................................................................................................................ 3

13. When students appear highly likely to drop out of school,* does your district provide information about the following education and training options? (Circle one on each line.)

Education and training option

Yes, this is standard

procedure with all students highly

likely to drop out

Yes, with some students No

a. *Alternative schools or programs administered by your district or another entity ......................................................................... 1 2 3

b. *Job training/GED combination programs (e.g., Job Corps) ....... 1 2 3 c. GED or adult education programs .............................................. 1 2 3 d. *Job training programs ................................................................. 1 2 3

14. Does your district try to determine the status of students who were expected to return to school in the fall but who do not return as expected? (Circle one.)

Yes, for all students ................................................................................................. 1 Yes, for some students ........................................................................................... 2 No ............................................................................................................................ 3

15. When students drop out during the school year, does your district follow up with those students sometime before the next school year to encourage them to return? (Circle one.)

Yes, for all students who drop out ........................................................................... 1 Yes, for some students who drop out ..................................................................... 2 No ............................................................................................................................ 3

16. Does your district use any of the following information to determine whether to implement additional district-wide dropout prevention efforts? (Circle one on each line.) Yes No a. Dropout rates ................................................................................................................................. 1 2 b. Graduation rates .............................................................................................................................. 1 2 c. Attendance rates ............................................................................................................................. 1 2 d. Number of expulsions or other disciplinary actions ......................................................................... 1 2 e. State standardized test scores ........................................................................................................ 1 2 f. Number of students attending adult education/GED program ........................................................ 1 2 g. Number of students taking or passing the GED test ....................................................................... 1 2 h. Number or percentage of students failing courses or held back ..................................................... 1 2 i. Feedback from a district-administered parent or student survey ................................................... 1 2 j. Other(specify) _________________________________________________________________ 1 2

Documents

Dropout Prevention Services and Programs in Public School